Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.28 seconds)Section 107 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of U.P. vs District Judge, Unnao And Ors. on 6 December, 1983
The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. District Judge, Unnao (supra) has specifically held that "injustice was caused due to rigid and inflexible view of jurisdiction under Article 227. Article 227 or Article 226 was devised to advance justice and not to thwart it".
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Singhara Singh And Others on 16 August, 1963
The decision (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh) is not directly on the point and the contention of Mr. Dutta that one cannot come under Article 227 without certified copy in revisional jurisdiction is a matter of adjudication.
Nand Kishore Prasad vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 19 April, 1978
This Appellate Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court is of general nature so far as the revisional applications are concerned including civil, criminal Article 227 and other revisional applications. But there is no special Rules of revisional application under Article 227 which gives the High Court authority of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction. It is required that like Rules under Article 226 of the Constitution of Calcutta High Court relating to writ applications there must be separate Rules so far as Article 227 is concerned. Articles 227 gives wide power of interference to High Court in matters of (i) erroneous assumption or excess of jurisdiction , Rukura-nand v. State of Bihar); (ii) refusal to exercise jurisdiction (AIR 1964 SC 1320, Dahya Lal v. State of Maharashtra); (iii) error of law apparent on the face of the record, as distinguished from a mere mistake of law or error of law relating to jurisdiction (AIR 1968 SC 141, State of Gujarat v. Vakhat Singhji); (iv) violation of principles of natural justice (1958 SCR 302, D. N. Banerji v. Mukherjee); (v) arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion (AIR 1958 SC 312, Santosh v. Mool Singh); and (vi) arriving at a finding which is perversed or based on no material (AIR 1968 SC 1895, Nibaran v. Mahendra). In such a wide and panoramic jurisdiction of power under Article 227 and as expanded from time to time by the Supreme Court in its various rulings it is necessary that the rigid Appellate Side Rule 9 must be relaxed so far as revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution is concerned. Dependence upon Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not serve the purpose so far Article 227 is concerned.
D. N. Banerji vs P. R. Mukherjee And Others on 5 December, 1952
This Appellate Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court is of general nature so far as the revisional applications are concerned including civil, criminal Article 227 and other revisional applications. But there is no special Rules of revisional application under Article 227 which gives the High Court authority of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction. It is required that like Rules under Article 226 of the Constitution of Calcutta High Court relating to writ applications there must be separate Rules so far as Article 227 is concerned. Articles 227 gives wide power of interference to High Court in matters of (i) erroneous assumption or excess of jurisdiction , Rukura-nand v. State of Bihar); (ii) refusal to exercise jurisdiction (AIR 1964 SC 1320, Dahya Lal v. State of Maharashtra); (iii) error of law apparent on the face of the record, as distinguished from a mere mistake of law or error of law relating to jurisdiction (AIR 1968 SC 141, State of Gujarat v. Vakhat Singhji); (iv) violation of principles of natural justice (1958 SCR 302, D. N. Banerji v. Mukherjee); (v) arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion (AIR 1958 SC 312, Santosh v. Mool Singh); and (vi) arriving at a finding which is perversed or based on no material (AIR 1968 SC 1895, Nibaran v. Mahendra). In such a wide and panoramic jurisdiction of power under Article 227 and as expanded from time to time by the Supreme Court in its various rulings it is necessary that the rigid Appellate Side Rule 9 must be relaxed so far as revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution is concerned. Dependence upon Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not serve the purpose so far Article 227 is concerned.