Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
66. We may also observe that in some High Courts
there is a tendency of entertaining petitions under
Article 227 of the Constitution by terming them as
writ petitions. This is sought to be justified on an
erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya Dev
[Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6
SCC 675] and in view of the recent amendment to
Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the
Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. It
is urged that as a result of the amendment, scope
of Section 115 CPC has been curtailed. In our
view, even if the scope of Section 115 CPC is
curtailed that has not resulted in expanding the
High Court's power of superintendence. It is too
well known to be reiterated that in exercising its
jurisdiction, High Court must follow the regime of
law.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Radhey Shyam & Anr vs Chhabi Nath & Ors on 15 April, 2009
27. Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of
civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari
under Article 226. We are also in agreement with the
view [Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC
616] of the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus
does not lie against a private person not discharging
any public duty. Scope of Article 227 is different from
Article 226.
Shail vs Manoj Kumar And Ors on 29 March, 2004
In Shail [Shail v. Manoj Kumar,
(2004) 4 SCC 785 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1401], though
reference has been made to Surya Dev Rai [Surya
Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] ,
the same is only for the purpose of scope of power
under Article 227 as is clear from para 3 of the said
judgment. There is no discussion on the issue of
Patna High Court CWJC No.17855 of 2015 dt.04-09-2024
8/9
maintainability of a petition under Article 226.
M/S Mahendra Saree Emporium vs G.V. Srinivasa Murthy on 27 August, 2004
In
Mahendra Saree Emporium (2) [Mahendra Saree
Emporium (2) v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy, (2005) 1
SCC 481] , reference to Surya Dev Rai [Surya Dev
Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] is
made in para 9 of the judgment only for the
proposition that no subordinate legislation can
whittle down the jurisdiction conferred by the
Constitution.
Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005
Similarly, in Salem Advocate Bar Assn.
(2) [Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India,
(2005) 6 SCC 344] in para 40, reference to Surya
Dev Rai [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai,
(2003) 6 SCC 675] is for the same purpose. We are,
thus, unable to accept the submission of the learned
counsel for the respondent.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Waryam Singh And Another vs Amarnath And Another on 19 January, 1954
Scope of Article
227 has been explained in several decisions
including Waryam Singh v. Amarnath [AIR 1954 SC
215 : 1954 SCR 565] , Ouseph Mathai v. M. Abdul
Khadir [(2002) 1 SCC 319] , Shalini Shyam Shetty v.
Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329 : (2010)
3 SCC (Civ) 338] and Sameer Suresh Gupta v.
Rahul Kumar Agarwal [(2013) 9 SCC 374 : (2013)
4 SCC (Civ) 345] . In Shalini Shyam Shetty [(2010)
8 SCC 329 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 338] this Court
observed: (SCC p. 352, paras 64-67)
"64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns
that of late there is a growing trend amongst
several High Courts to entertain writ petition in
cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating
to partition suits, matters relating to execution of
a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord
and tenant and also in a case of money decree
and in various other cases where disputed
questions of property are involved, writ courts are
entertaining such disputes. In some cases the
High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain
petitions under Article 227 over such disputes and
such petitions are treated as writ petitions.