Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.35 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dipak Banerjee vs Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty on 30 July, 1987
In the present case there are neither pleadings nor is there any evidence that the portion of the suit premises was exclusively given in possession of the defendant No. 6 firm. There is also no evidence that the defendant No. 6 paid any compensation or rent for the use of the suit premises. The plaintiff in his cross-examination admitted that he did not have any documentary evidence about the subletting by the defendant No. 2 to other defendants and he had also no witness to prove subletting of the suit premises. As both the Courts below did not take into consideration the necessary ingredients set out above for proving subletting of the suit premises, their finding on the point of subletting cannot be sustained, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Dipak Banerjee v. Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty, (supra). Consequently, agreeing with the learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant No. 2, I find that the Courts below were not right in decreeing the claim of the respondent No. 1-plaintiff on the ground mentioned in section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Waryam Singh And Another vs Amarnath And Another on 19 January, 1954
"The Special Civil Application preferred by the appellant was admittedly an application under Article 227 and it is , therefore material only to consider the scope and admit of the jurisdiction of the High Court under that article. Did the High Court have jurisdiction in an application under Article 227 to disturb the findings of fact reached by the District Court? It is well settled by the decision of this Court in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, , that the :
Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. vs Sukumar Mukherjee on 30 August, 1950
" ..... ...... power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee, (S.B.) to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors."
Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958
Their lordships of the Supreme Court have also reproduced the following passage from the decision in the case of Nagendra Nath Bora and others v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam, and others, .
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Babhutmal Raichand Oswal vs Laxmibai Raghunath Tarte on 19 November, 1971
"In case of finding of facts, the Court should not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Reference may be made to the observations of this Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte, , where this Court observed that the High Court could not in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert into a Court of Appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. The High Court was not competent to correct errors of facts by examining the evidence and reappreciating. Speaking for the Court, Bhagwati, J., as the learned Chief Justice then was, observed at page 1301 of the report as follows: