Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.87 seconds)The Delimitation Act, 1972
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 21 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Muni Lal And Ors. vs Prescribed Authority And Ors. on 20 September, 1976
"14. Applying the ration of the above mentioned case that landlord, who desires to live independently and set up his business, has a valid right to do the same. He cannot be compelled to live on the earnings of his sons if he is physically fit to run the business. In the instant case nothing has been shown by the petitioner that the landlord was suffering from any ailment or was unable to start his own business. The finding recorded by the Appellate Authority that need of the landlord was bona fide and genuine, and greater hardship would be caused to the landlord in case the shop was not released, suffers from no error apparent on the face of the record. Both the findings are findings of the fact and cannot be interfered with by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court while exercising powers under this provision is not exercising appellate powers but is exercising supervisory power only as held by the Supreme Court in AIR 1978 SC 29 : 1981 ARC 470 (SC), Muni Lal and others v. Prescribed Authority and others."
Section 2 in The Delimitation Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005
28. We may also deal with the submission made on behalf of the respondent that the view in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 stands approved by larger Benches in Shail vs Manoj Kumar, (2004) 4 SCC 785, Mahendra Saree Emporium (2) vs. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy, (2005) 1 SCC 481 and Salem Advocate Bar Association (2) vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 and on that ground correctness of the said view cannot be gone into by this Bench.
Surendra Singh vs Additional District Judge Court No.11, ... on 11 July, 2019
21. Recently in Surendra Singh vs. Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Muzaffarnagar and 4 others, 2019 (3) ARC 221, the co-ordinate Bench held that an order to be amenable to correction in certiorari jurisdiction, the error committed by the Court or Authority on whose judgment this Court is exercising jurisdiction, should be an error which is self-evident. The Court further noticed that an error which needs to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or by indulging into a long- drawn process of reasoning, cannot possibly be an error available for correction by writ of certiorari. If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. The Court further held that High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction cannot indulge into re-appreciation or revaluation of evidence or correcting the errors in drawing inferences like a court of appeal.
Chhedi Lal Misra (Dead) Through Lrs vs Civil Judge, Lucknow & Ors on 13 February, 2007
8. Reliance has also been placed upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Chhedi Lal Mishra vs. Civil Judge, Lucknow and others, 2007 (3) ADJ 83 (SC) and U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs vs. Mazhar Hasan and others, 2001 Allahabad Civil Journal 1530.