Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.88 seconds)Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr vs Rajendra Shankar Patil on 23 July, 2010
In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar
Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing
the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of
superintendence, 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.
Jai Singh & Ors vs M.C.D. & Anr on 23 September, 2010
In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
8
O.P.(RC) No.90 of 2022
[(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and
scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court,
under Article 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to
ensure that all subordinate courts, as well as statutory or
quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the powers vested in them,
within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the
power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in
accordance with the well established principles of law. The
High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence
and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or
appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this
Article is, in some ways, wider than the power and
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It
is, however, well to remember the well known adage that
greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise
thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise
such wide powers with great care, caution and
circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within
9
O.P.(RC) No.90 of 2022
the well recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a
'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of
a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction.
This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where
orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in
flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.
K.V.S.Ram vs Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp on 14 January, 2015
In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan
Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex
Court held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court
can interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when
there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the
tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been
gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of
natural justice have been flouted. On the facts of the said
case, the Apex Court held that, when the Labour Court has
exercised its discretion keeping in view the facts of the case
and the cases of similarly situated workmen, the High Court
ought not to have interfered with the exercise of discretion by
10
O.P.(RC) No.90 of 2022
the Labour Court.
Sobhana Nair K.N. Aged 60 Years vs Shaji S.G.Nair on 13 August, 2015
In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016
(1) KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law
is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that
in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by
the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is
only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court.
Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the
lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the
reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or
the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict
with settled principles of law.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1