Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.34 seconds)
Rjesh S/O Ramesh Joshi vs Sadanand S/O Uttam Hivrale And Others on 21 November, 2019 cites

Ramchandra Dagoji Rangari (Dead) Thru. ... vs Vishwanath Champat Naik & Anor on 4 January, 2016

The referral order in the present ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 04:26:57 ::: 31 lpa nos.177.12 & 288.11.odt case has expressed its disagreement with such a view with reasons in support of it and we concur with it. Normally, being a co-ordinate Full Bench, it will not be open for us on judicial discipline and propriety to hold that the Full Bench decision in Ramchandra Rangari's case is per incuriam and we will have to refer the matter to a larger Bench.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Ram Kishan Fauji vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 March, 2017

In our view, the ratio of the decision has to be understood not only from what has been laid down in the light of the contentions rejected or accepted, but also from the position of law, if any, reversed, overruled or accepted or confirmed. Though the Civil Courts are subordinate to the High Court, the expression 'inferior Court' is not referable to 'Judicial Court'. It is thus clear to us that the judicial orders of the Civil Court are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are no precedents in India for the High Courts to issue writs to subordinate Courts. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is distinct from one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, hold ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 04:26:57 ::: 15 lpa nos.177.12 & 288.11.odt that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the Judicial/Civil Courts, subordinate to the High Court and seeking a writ of certiorari, is not maintainable. The question of law at Serial No.(1) is answered accordingly. Consequently, the question of law at Serial No.(2) does not at all survive.
Supreme Court of India Cites 66 - Cited by 233 - D Misra - Full Document

Savita Devi vs District Judge, Gorakhpur And Others on 18 February, 1999

In Savitri Devi (supra), the Court took exception to courts and tribunals being made parties. It is apposite to note here that propositions laid down in each case has to be understood in proper perspective. Civil courts, which decide matters, are courts in the strictest sense of the term. Neither the court nor the Presiding Officer defends the order before the superior court it does not contest. If the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction or revisional jurisdiction, as the case may be, calls for the records, the same can always be called for by the High Court without the Court or the Presiding Officer being impleaded as a party. Similarly, with the passage of time there have been many a tribunal which only adjudicate and they have nothing to do with the lis. We may cite few examples; the tribunals constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Income Tax Appellat Tribunals, the Sales Tax Tribunal and such others. Every adjudicating authority may be nomenclatured as a tribunal but the said authority(ies) are different that pure and simple adjudicating authorities and that is why they are called the authorities. An Income Tax Commissioner, whatever rank he may be holding, when he adjudicates, he has to be made a party, for, he can defend his order. He is entitled to contest. There are many authorities under many a statute. Therefore, the proposition that can safely be culled out is that the authorities or the tribunals, who in law are entitled to defend the orders passed by them, are necessary parties and if they are not arrayed as parties, ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 04:26:57 ::: 30 lpa nos.177.12 & 288.11.odt the writ petition can be treated to be not maintainable or the court may grant liberty to implead them as parties in exercise of its discretion. There are tribunals which are not at all required to defend their own order, and in that case such tribunals need not be arrayed as parties. To give another example:--in certain enactments, the District Judges function as Election Tribunals from whose orders a revision or a writ may lie depending upon the provisions in the Act. In such a situation, the superior court, that is the High Court, even if required to call for the records, the District Judge need not be a party. Thus, in essence, when a tribunal or authority is required to defend its own order, it is to be made a party failing which the proceeding before the High Court would be regarded as not maintainable."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 206 - Full Document

Umaji Keshao Meshram & Ors vs Radhikabai W/O Anandrao Banapurkar & ... on 14 March, 1986

(a) In the decision of the Apex Court in Umaji Keshao Meshram's case, the question was regarding the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge delivered in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 or 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It was neither the question raised nor decided as to whether a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable without impleading the tribunal or authority as a party respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 137 - Cited by 194 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next