Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.85 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Vidyabai & Ors vs Padmalatha & Anr on 12 December, 2008
In a decision reported in (2009)2 SCC 409 (in the case
of Vidyabai & Others Vs. Padmalatha & Another), the
Supreme Court has held:-
Ranjeet Singh vs Ravi Prakash on 18 March, 2004
32. The aforesaid two decisions and few other
decisions, namely, Chandavarkar Sita Ratna
Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram20, State of
Maharashtra v. Milind21 and Ranjeet Singh v.
Ravi Prakash22, came to be considered by this
Court in Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj23
and this Court held : (Tilak Raj case23, SCC
pp.10-11, para 38)
6
"38. Though powers of a High Court under
Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive
over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised
within the limits of law. The power is supervisory
in nature. The High Court does not act as a
court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither
review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the
evidence upon which determination of a
subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports
to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of
law and to substitute its own decision for that of
the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are
required to be exercised most sparingly and only
in appropriate cases in order to keep the
subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within
the limits of law."
Shamahad Ahmad & Ors vs Tilak Raj Bajaj (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 11 September, 2008
32. The aforesaid two decisions and few other
decisions, namely, Chandavarkar Sita Ratna
Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram20, State of
Maharashtra v. Milind21 and Ranjeet Singh v.
Ravi Prakash22, came to be considered by this
Court in Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj23
and this Court held : (Tilak Raj case23, SCC
pp.10-11, para 38)
6
"38. Though powers of a High Court under
Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive
over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised
within the limits of law. The power is supervisory
in nature. The High Court does not act as a
court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither
review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the
evidence upon which determination of a
subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports
to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of
law and to substitute its own decision for that of
the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are
required to be exercised most sparingly and only
in appropriate cases in order to keep the
subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within
the limits of law."
Celina Coelho Pereira & Ors vs Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar & Ors on 30 October, 2009
In a decision reported in (2010) 1 SCC 217 (in the case
of Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) & others Vs. Ulhas
Mahabaleshwar Kholkar & others), the Supreme Court has
held:-
J.Samuel & Ors vs Gattu Mhesh & Ors on 16 January, 2012
In a decision reported in (2012) 2 SCC 300 (in the case
of J.Samuel and Others Vs. Gattu Mahesh and Others), the
supreme court has held:-
Chander Kanta Bansal vs Rajinder Singh Anand on 11 March, 2008
17. The learned counsel for defendants relying on a
decision of the Supreme Court, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 117
(in the case of Chander Kanta Bansal Vs. Rajinder Singh
Anand), would submit that averments of affidavit would
establish that defendants had exercised due diligence as
expected of a prudent man and they could not plead these
facts in the original written statement, due to lapse on the
part of their previous counsel. Therefore, trial court has
rightly accepted the application for amendment of written
statement. This court in exercise of jurisdiction under article
27
227 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the
findings recorded by trial court.
Radhey Shyam & Anr vs Chhabi Nath & Ors on 15 April, 2009
In a decision reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4006 (in the
case of Radhey Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath &
Others), the Supreme Court has held:-