Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.32 seconds)
Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board ... vs Ketanbhai Dinkarray Pandya on 9 May, 2000 cites

Naranji Peraji Transport Co. vs Ramnikbhai B. Waghela on 12 December, 1997

(1) Naranji Peraji Transport Co. v. Ramnikbhai B. Vaghela, 1998 (2) GLR 984 (2) Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Am. JT 1994 (7) SC 476 (3) Chief Superintendent, Government Livestock Farm, Hissar v. Ramesh Kumar, 1998 SCC (L & S) 150 (4) Tara & Ors. v. Director, Social Welfare & Ors., 1998 (2) LLJ 632 (5) State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. R. L. Khandelwal, 1968 (38) Comp.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 7 - R M Doshit - Full Document

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Virendra Kumar Jayantibhai Patel(With ... on 23 July, 1997

35. As per the decision of the Apex Court in case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Virendrakumar Jayantibhai Patel, reported in 1998 (1) GLR 17 (SC), as also the decision of this Court in case of Chhagan Ranchhod Kukavava v. General Manager, W.R., Bombay, reported in 1998 (1) GLH 461 as also the case reported in AIR 2000 SC 931 (Mohan Ambaprasad Aghnihotri v. Bhaskar Balwant), an order passed by the labour Court and/or the tribunal can be challenged under Art. 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India only if there is any jurisdictional error or procedural error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal and assess the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the competent Courts or the tribunal. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court and of the Apex Court, since no infirmity and/or jurisdictional error has been painted out by the learned Advocate for the petitioner-Board and since he has also not been able to establish that the findings of fact recorded by the labour Court are based on no evidence, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned order passed by the labour Court in the recovery applications. Therefore, there is no substance in the present petitions filed by the petitioner-Board. Accordingly, all these petitions are dismissed. Rule in each petition is discharged. Ad interim relief granted earlier in each petition shall stand vacated with no order as to costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 47 - V N Khare - Full Document
1