Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.653 of 2016 dt.12-09-2024
7/10
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.653 of 2016 dt.12-09-2024
8/10
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.
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.
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.653 of 2016 dt.12-09-2024
9/10
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.