Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.24 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
L & T Finance Limited vs Anup Kumar Bera & Anr on 20 January, 2014
1-Tej Bahadur Thapa vs. Branch Manager of
District Central Co-Operative Bank & Anr.,
reported in (2017) 1 Cal LT Page 437
2- Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.,
reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261
3- The Operation Manager, Auto Loan
Consumer Service Dept vs Praveen Khaitan.,
reported in 2012 SCC Online Cal 2482
4
4- L&T Finance Ltd vs Anup Kumar Bera and
Anr., reported in 2014 SCC Online Cal
1447.
Indian Medical Association vs V.P. Shantha & Ors on 13 November, 1995
6- Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha
& Ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 651
7- Laxman Kini, A. Vs. The Chairman and
Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank
and Ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 651.
Dharamveer & Ors vs State Of U.P on 9 March, 2010
9- Dharamveer & Ors. vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 469.
Babu Verghese & Ors vs Bar Council Of Kerala & Ors on 16 March, 1999
2- Babu Verghese & Ors. Vs. Bar Council of
Kerala & Ors., reported in (1999) 3 SCC
422.
5
3- Anil Kumar Neotia & Ors. Vs. Union of
India & Ors., reported in (1988) 2 SCC
587.
4- Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs.
Jagdeeshan., reported in AIR 2002 SC
681.
5- Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors.
Vs. B.D. Kaushik., reported in (2012) 6
SCC 152.
Anil Kumar Neotia And Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 April, 1988
2- Babu Verghese & Ors. Vs. Bar Council of
Kerala & Ors., reported in (1999) 3 SCC
422.
5
3- Anil Kumar Neotia & Ors. Vs. Union of
India & Ors., reported in (1988) 2 SCC
587.
4- Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs.
Jagdeeshan., reported in AIR 2002 SC
681.
5- Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors.
Vs. B.D. Kaushik., reported in (2012) 6
SCC 152.
Suganthi Suresh Kumar vs Jagdeeshan on 15 January, 2002
2- Babu Verghese & Ors. Vs. Bar Council of
Kerala & Ors., reported in (1999) 3 SCC
422.
5
3- Anil Kumar Neotia & Ors. Vs. Union of
India & Ors., reported in (1988) 2 SCC
587.
4- Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs.
Jagdeeshan., reported in AIR 2002 SC
681.
5- Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors.
Vs. B.D. Kaushik., reported in (2012) 6
SCC 152.
Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors vs B.D. Kaushik on 26 September, 2011
2- Babu Verghese & Ors. Vs. Bar Council of
Kerala & Ors., reported in (1999) 3 SCC
422.
5
3- Anil Kumar Neotia & Ors. Vs. Union of
India & Ors., reported in (1988) 2 SCC
587.
4- Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs.
Jagdeeshan., reported in AIR 2002 SC
681.
5- Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors.
Vs. B.D. Kaushik., reported in (2012) 6
SCC 152.
Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr vs Rajendra Shankar Patil on 23 July, 2010
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty &
Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil., reported in (2010) 8
SCC 329 having pleased to hold "Article 227 can be
Another (supra) Article 227 can be invoked by the High
6
Court suo motu as a custodian of justice. An improper
and a frequent exercise of this power will be
counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary
power of its strength and vitality. The power is
discretionary and has to be exercised very sparingly on
equitable principle. This reserve and exceptional power
of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for
grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed
for promotion of public confidence in the administration
of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article
226 is meant for protection of individual grievances.
Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be
unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of
judicial discipline. The object of superintendence under
Article 227, both administrative and judicial, is to
maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of
the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does
not bring it into any disrepute. The power of
interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the
minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not
come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure
and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence
in the functioning of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to the High Court. The jurisdiction under
Article 227 is not original nor is it appellate. This
jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 is for
both administrative and judicial superintendence.