Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.44 seconds)Section 11 in The Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India Act, 1997 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 10 in The Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India Act, 1997 [Entire Act]
Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Ltd., Pali vs Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur And Ors. on 15 September, 1954
11. The learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner by placing
reliance on judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court in Maharaja Shri
Umaid Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, 1954 SCC OnLine Raj 23 and
Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Mohd. Yaqoob Shah v. State (UT of
10
Paragraph 19 of order dated 25.02.2025 passed by TDSAT in MA. No. 42/2024 in B.P No. 457/2024 and
connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
W.P.(C) 3147/2025 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 21
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:08.04.2025
15:20:10
J&K) submits that the provision of Section 18 of the Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India Act, 1997 (hereinafter 'TRAI Act') makes available a
right of statutory appeal, however, the said right is not available against an
interlocutory order/s and as a consequence thereof, the petitioner does not
have any other alternative remedy except to file the present petitions. Thus,
it is submitted that the present petitions are maintainable and the petitioner
possesses a right of judicial review against the impugned order, which
seriously prejudices and adversely affects its rights.
M/S Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 August, 2011
In this regard, reliance
is placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in Sterling Agro
Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, 2011 SCC OnLine Del
3162.
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others on 9 December, 1954
(ix) This Court finds nothing amiss in the aforesaid findings, so as to
warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Reference in this regard may be made to a
judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Hari
Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Others, (1954) 2 SCC
881, wherein, it has been observed as under: -
A.R.R. Enterprises And A.R.R. Nut Corn ... vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Central ... on 19 March, 2004
25. The further question on which there has been some controversy is
whether a writ can be issued, when the decision of the inferior court
or tribunal is erroneous in law. This question came up for
consideration in R. v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal
Tribunal, ex p Shaw [R. v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal
Tribunal, ex p Shaw, (1951) 1 KB 711] , and it was held that when a
tribunal made a "speaking order" and the reasons given in that order
in support of the decision were bad in law, certiorari could be
granted. It was pointed out by Lord Goddard, C.J. that that had
always been understood to be the true scope of the power.
Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs Chief Executive Officer, Noida & Ors. ... on 29 April, 2014
In R. v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd. [R. v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd., (1922) 2 AC
128] Lord Sumner said : (AC p. 156)
"... That supervision goes to two points : one is the area of the
inferior jurisdiction and the qualifications and conditions of its
exercise; the other is the observance of the law in the course of
its exercise."
M/S. Estralla Rubber vs Dass Estate (Private) Ltd on 12 September, 2001
"15. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a
High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined
and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of
power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep
inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and
to see that they perform the duty expected or required of them in a
legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited
prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made
within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or
tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the
courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty
and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice,
where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains
uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting
under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or
substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to
correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The
High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior
court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding
is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a
conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to[Refer : Estralla
Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97]."