Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S. Estralla Rubber vs Dass Estate (Private) Ltd on 12 September, 2001
The learned counsel further relied
upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Estralla
-12-
Rubber Vs. Dass Estates (P) Ltd. reported (2001) 8 SCC 97
and State of U.P. and Another Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha
and Another, reported in AIR 2010 SC 137, to submit that
while the powers of the Industrial Tribunal in the matter of
Settlement is very wide, the scope and ambit of excise of
power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 is
restricted to serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation
of fundamental principles of law and justice.
State Of U.P.& Anr vs Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Anr on 17 August, 2009
The learned counsel further relied
upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Estralla
-12-
Rubber Vs. Dass Estates (P) Ltd. reported (2001) 8 SCC 97
and State of U.P. and Another Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha
and Another, reported in AIR 2010 SC 137, to submit that
while the powers of the Industrial Tribunal in the matter of
Settlement is very wide, the scope and ambit of excise of
power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 is
restricted to serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation
of fundamental principles of law and justice.
Hydro (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd vs The Workmen on 30 April, 1968
13. The learned counsel further submitted that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of M/s Hydro (Engineers)
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Workmen, reported in AIR 1969 SC 182,
has held that it is a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to
decide from the circumstance of each case from which date
its award should come into operation. It was held that no
general rule can be laid down as to a date from which the
Tribunal should bring its award in force.
Raghunathe Jew At Bhapur vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 9 December, 1998
17. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the
respondent-Union on the proposition that High Courts, while
issuing writ of Certiorari may invoke its jurisdiction only
-15-
when error is apparent on the face of the record and not every
error either of law or fact, which can be corrected by a
superior Court, in exercise of its statutory powers under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is taken
note of. However, it is also well settled that in exercise of
such supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court would be
entitled to interfere with the conclusions of an inferior Court
or Tribunal, if the Court/Tribunal ignores material piece of
evidence from the purview of consideration or the conclusion
is based upon any error of law - Raghunathe Jew at
Bhapur Vs. State of Orissa and others, reported in (1999)
1 SCC 488.
Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958
In this
regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions
of a Constitution Bench in Nagendra Nath Bora and
Another Vs. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals,
Assam and Others, reported in AIR 1958 SC 398 and Hari
Vishnu Kamath Vs. Ahmad Ishaque and Others, reported
in AIR 1955 SC 233.
The Companies Act, 1956
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others on 9 December, 1954
In this
regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions
of a Constitution Bench in Nagendra Nath Bora and
Another Vs. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals,
Assam and Others, reported in AIR 1958 SC 398 and Hari
Vishnu Kamath Vs. Ahmad Ishaque and Others, reported
in AIR 1955 SC 233.
1