Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.33 seconds)
Pacs vs Union on 6 September, 2010 cites

General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini ... vs Satrughan Nishad And Others on 8 October, 2003

11. In the instant case the High Court has itself observed that disputed questions of fact were involved and yet went on to give directions as if it was adjudicating the money claim in a suit. The course is clearly impermissible. (See: General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur U.P. v. Satrughan Nishad and others (2003 (8) SCC 639), Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Another (2003(4) SCC 317).
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 222 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Smt. Ujjam Bai vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 28 April, 1961

It is settled legal proposition that the remedy of a person aggrieved by the decision of the competent judicial Tribunal is to approach for redress a superior Tribunal, if there is any, and that order cannot be circumvented by resorting to an application for a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution. Relief under Article 32 can be for enforcing a right conferred by Part III of the Constitution and only on the proof of infringement thereof. If by adjudication by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the right claimed has been negatived, a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable. It is not generally assumed that a judicial decision pronounced by a Court may violate the Fundamental Right of a party. Judicial orders passed by the Court in or in relation to proceeding pending before it are not amenable to be corrected by issuing a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution. (Vide Sahibzada Saiyed Muhammed Amirabbas Abbasi & Ors. Vs. the State of Madhya Bharat (now Madhya Pradesh) & Ors. AIR 1960 SC 768; Smt. Ujjam Bai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. AIR 1962 SC 1621; and Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1967 SC 1)
Supreme Court of India Cites 138 - Cited by 248 - S K Das - Full Document
1