Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.37 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 108 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Section 104 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 107 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Shivdeo Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 8 February, 1961
36. Article 226 or the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 made by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh made by the Andhra Pradesh High Court by virtue of Article 225 of the Constitution of India, do not specifically provide for a review of the orders passed under Article 226. But, being a Court of superior jurisdiction and a constitutional Court, the power of review and recall its own orders inhere in the High Court. This principle was first reiterated by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909 and their Lordships observed that "it is sufficient to say that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution of India to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it." Therefore, if there are circumstances (i) of miscarriage of justice and/or (ii) to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it, the High Court can exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution itself. Indeed, every Court exercising judicial power must be presumed to have inherent power to recall the orders, which are vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation.
Article 225 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shah Babulal Khimji vs Jayaben D. Kania And Anr on 10 August, 1981
47. As observed by us when a review application is dismissed in limini even without ordering notice to other side no writ appeal lies against such order for an order dismissing review application at the threshold is not a judgment as per the tests laid down in Shah Babulal Khimji case.
A. Srinath And Ors. vs A.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... on 6 December, 2000
34. The lucid and succinct narration of facts by My Lord the Chief Justice holds good and there is no necessity to repeat the same. By reason of the authority of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in A. Srinath v. A.P. State Transport Corporation, , there is no necessity to focus judicial process on the settled question of law that the provisions of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') have no application to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
South Asia Industries Private Ltd vs S. B. Sarup Singh And Others on 18 January, 1965
Limited, and South Asia Industries Private Limited v. S.B. Sarup Singh, , the Apex Court held that the High Court possessed all the jurisdiction which inhered at the commencement of Government of India Act, 1915 and also the jurisdiction that was conferred from time to time by the legislative power and that in the Court of Appeal (Letters Patent Appeal) under Clause 15 of Letters Patent lies against all the judgments of a single Judge of the High Court unless the same is specifically barred by a Statute and/or falls in the categories of three types of cases excluded by Clause 15 of Letters Patent.