Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.21 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
J.K. Iron And Steel Co. Ltd., Kanpur vs The Iron And Steel Mazdoor Union, ... on 23 December, 1955
It was further held that such an authority is not a court much less a civil court so as to enable them to exercise inherent powers. Reliance was placed, by the learned Judges on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of J. K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Kanpur v. The Iron and Steel Mazdoor Union, Kanpur, (AIR 1956 SC 231) where their Lordships were considering the scope and authority of an adjudicator under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and observed:
Patel Narshi Thakershi And Ors. vs Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji on 2 March, 1970
In the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, (AIR 1970 SC 1273) their Lordships were considering the question whether the commissioner appointed as a delegate of the State Government under Section 63 of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act had the right to review an order passed by the Government. Their Lordships held in that connection as follows:--
Zakeria Suleman vs The Collector, Yeotmal And Ors. on 1 September, 1961
In the case of Haji Zakeria Suleman v. The Collector, Yeotmal, (AIR 1963 Bom 233) the question was whether the Rent Controller or the Rent Control authorities under the C. P. & Berar Letting of House and Rent Control Order could exercise inherent powers. The learned Judges held:--
Sunderlal Mannalal vs Nandramdas Dwarkadas And Ors. on 16 October, 1957
The learned Judges expressly said that they were unable to agree with the line of argument adopted by the learned Judges in the case of Sunderlal Mannalal, AIR 1958 Madh Pra 260 (supra).
K. Kamaraja Nadar vs Kunju Thevar And Ors. on 22 April, 1958
In the case of K. Kamaraja Nadar, AIR 1958 SC 687 (supra) their Lordships after discussing the provisions of law relating to elections said:
Inamati Mallappa Basappa vs Desai Basavaraj Ayyappa & Others on 22 April, 1958
In the case of Venkata Subbiah Chettiar, AIR 1924 Mad 797 (supra) while an election petition was pending before the District Judge under the Rules of Madras District Municipalities Act a petition had been filed purporting to be under Sections 94, 141, 151 and Order 39, Rule 2 of the Code and an order had been passed restraining the petitioner of that case from taking his seat in the Municipal Council until the disposal of the petition. One of the rules said that every election petition shall be enquired into by the Judge as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to the trial of suits. The argument before the learned Judge was that the District Judge had a residuary power which enabled him to pass the order. It was held that the District Judge had acted without jurisdiction.
Martin Burn Ltd vs R.N Banerjee on 20 September, 1957
In the case of Martin Burn Ltd. v. R. N. Banerjee, (AIR 1958 SC 79) one of the questions before their Lordships was whether the Labour Appellate Tribunal could review its own order. Their Lordships held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal is the creature of the statute and all its powers must be found within the four corners of the statute. Their Lordships then proceeded to examine the powers of the Tribunal given by the Act and held on that basis that the Tribunal had such power.