Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)
Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr vs Rajendra Shankar Patil on 23 July, 2010 cites

Jahnabi Prosad Banerjee And Anr. vs Basudeb Paul And Ors. on 5 September, 1949

38. The history of this power has been elaborately traced by a Division Bench of Calcutta High 2 Court in the case of Jahnabi Prosad Banerjee and another vs. Basudeb Paul & others, reported in AIR 1950 Calcutta 536 and that was followed in a Division Bench Judgment of Allahabad High Court in Sukhdeo Baiswar vs. Brij Bhushan Misra and others in AIR 1951 Allahabad 667.
Calcutta High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Manmathanath Kundu And Ors. vs Emperor on 9 February, 1933

"6. Though this Court has a right to interfere with decisions of Courts and tribunals under its power of superintendence, it appears to me that that right must be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. The matter was considered by a Bench of this Court in Manmathanath v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Cal 132. In that case a Bench over which Sir George Rankin C. J. presided held that Section 107, Government of India Act (which roughly 2 corresponds to Article 227 of the Constitution), does not vest the High Court with limitless power which may be exercised at the Court's discretion to remove the hardship of particular decisions. The power of superintendence it confers is a power of a known and well-recognised character and should be exercised on those judicial principles which give it its character. In general words, the High Court's power of superintendence is a power to keep subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner."
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1