Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)Chairman Grid Corporation Of Orissa ... vs Smt. Sukamani Das And Anr. Etc on 15 September, 1999
The Supreme Court dealt the question of scope of
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in
cases involving disputed questions of facts in case of Chairman,
Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) & Ors. V.
Sukamaini Das & Ors reported in (1997) SCC 298 and held that
disputed questions of facts ought not to be entertained under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Food Corporation Of India & Anr vs Pala Ram & Ors on 16 May, 2008
Again in case of Food Corporation of India v. Pala
Ram reported in (2008) 14 SCC 32 the Supreme Court held in
paragraph 47 that writ petition was not maintainable as series of
disputed questions of facts were raised.
Natha Singh & Ors vs The Financial Commissioner, Taxation, ... on 11 March, 1976
The Supreme Court in the case of Natha Singh vs. the
Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab & Others reported in
AIR 1976 SC 1053 held in paragraph 5 as follows:-
Subhashree Das @ Milli vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 5 October, 2012
The law on the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in cases involving
disputed questions of facts has been succinctly laid down by the
Supreme Court in case of Shubhashree Das @ Mili v. the State of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11653 of 2010 (4) dt.28-11-2014
13/14
Orissa & Ors reported in (2012) 9 SCC 729 holding that claims of
the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could
not have been determined on the basis of disputed facts. The
Supreme Court held that " in a case where the petitioner/ appellant
wishes to press his/her claim before a High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the claim raised by such
petitioner/ appellant must be determined on the basis of factual
position and acknowledged by the respondent". The Supreme
Court observed that this was so because a High Court in exercise
of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
would ordinarily not adjudicate a matter, where foundational facts
are disputed.
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverage Pvt Ltd vs Sangli Miraj & Kupwad Municipal ... on 4 July, 2011
In case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
v. Sangli Miraja Kupwad Municipal Commissioner & Ors
reported in (2011) 7 SCC 645 the Supreme Court held in
paragraph 21 that there being disputed questions of facts, they
should not have been gone into by the High Court exercising writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
1