Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.36 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs S. Chellappan And Ors on 19 September, 2000
In A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Chellappan 2000 (7) SCC 695, this Court held that "though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the constitutional powers of the High Court, it is a well-recognised principle which gained judicial recognition that the High Court should direct the party to avail himself of such remedies before he resorts to a Constitutional remedy"
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
12. But courts should always bear in mind a distinction between (i) cases where such alternative remedy is available before civil courts in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, and (ii) cases where such alternative remedy is available under special enactments and/or statutory rules and the fora provided therein happen to be quasi-judicial authorities and tribunals. In respect of cases falling under the first category, which may involve suits and other proceedings before civil courts, the availability of an appellate remedy in terms of the provisions of CPC, may have to be construed as a near total bar. Otherwise, there is a danger that someone may challenge in a revision under Article 227, even a decree passed in a suit, on the same grounds on which the Respondents 1 and 2 invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. This is why, a 3-member Bench of this Court, while overruling the decision in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai 2003 (6) SCC 675, pointed out in Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath 2015 (5) SCC 423 that "orders of civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts".
Radhey Shyam & Anr vs Chhabi Nath & Ors on 26 February, 2015
12. But courts should always bear in mind a distinction between (i) cases where such alternative remedy is available before civil courts in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, and (ii) cases where such alternative remedy is available under special enactments and/or statutory rules and the fora provided therein happen to be quasi-judicial authorities and tribunals. In respect of cases falling under the first category, which may involve suits and other proceedings before civil courts, the availability of an appellate remedy in terms of the provisions of CPC, may have to be construed as a near total bar. Otherwise, there is a danger that someone may challenge in a revision under Article 227, even a decree passed in a suit, on the same grounds on which the Respondents 1 and 2 invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. This is why, a 3-member Bench of this Court, while overruling the decision in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai 2003 (6) SCC 675, pointed out in Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath 2015 (5) SCC 423 that "orders of civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts".
Mohd. Shahid And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 August, 2016
In the case of Mohd. Shahid and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2003 AWC 65249, a landlord filed suit under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for eviction of the tenant. The application of the landlord was allowed and the matter travelled up to High Court where the order passed by the court below for eviction was affirmed and no special leave petition was preferred against the order passed by the High Court, yet the tenant, who was District Election Officer, instituted a suit against the landlord in which temporary injunction application was rejected, but in the appeal, the injunction was granted. In such view of the fact, the writ petition was filed praying for quashing of the order of the appellate court granting the temporary injunction and quashing the plaint.