Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.54 seconds)
Punjab Mandi Board vs State Of Punjab And Others on 21 November, 2025 cites

T. C. Basappa vs T. Nagappa And Another on 5 May, 1954

... in grave cases where the subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the face of the record....' In T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, (1954) 1 SCC 905] the law was thus stated : (SCC p. 915, para 11) 18 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 23:12:11 ::: CWP-14378-2024 -19- CWP-15371-2025 '11. ... An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of "certiorari" but it must be a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings e.g. when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by "certiorari" but not a mere wrong decision.'"
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 605 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Secretary & Commissioner, Home ... vs R. Kirubakaran on 21 September, 1993

35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment held that an application for correction of date of birth by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of service. However, the extracted passage from the two-Judge Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department Vs. R. Kirubakaran, 1993(4) SCT 803, also makes it clear that a change of date of birth may be permitted, where a clear case is made out on the basis of conclusive material and where the Court is fully satisfied that real injustice has occurred and the claim has been made in accordance with the prescribed procedure and within the time stipulated by the applicable rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 236 - N P Singh - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors on 16 November, 2010

34. Moreover, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Dhani Ram Chaudhary's case (supra) and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harnam Singh's case (supra) and Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble's case (supra) are distinguishable on facts. In those cases, the applications for correction of date of birth were filed after expiry of the prescribed limitation period. In contrast, in the present case, the revisional authority, upon examining the material on record, found that the application submitted by respondent No.3 for change of date of birth was already pending consideration when 1994 Amendment came into force and was, therefore, well within the limitation period.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 151 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Municipal Council Neemuch vs Mahadeo Real Estate on 17 September, 2019

18. Furthermore, it was argued that the petitioner-Board has not demonstrated any jurisdictional error, perversity, or violation of principles of natural justice in the impugned order passed by the revisional authority. In the absence of such grounds, this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot sit in appeal over the findings of fact duly recorded by the competent revisional authority. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Neemuch Vs. Mahadeo Real Estate & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 738.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 56 - B R Gavai - Full Document

M/S. South Indian Bank Ltd. vs Naveen Mathew Philip on 17 April, 2023

36. In the present case, the revisional authority's order rests on a meticulous process of verification. Upon examining the material on record, a fair and reasoned conclusion was reached that the application was initially submitted on 06.05.1994 and not at the fag end of service. The claim was thus found to have been made in accordance with the prescribed procedure and within the time stipulated under the applicable rules. This Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record, therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naveen Mathew Philip's case (supra), no ground is made out for interference with the order passed by the revisional 25 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 23:12:11 ::: CWP-14378-2024 -26- CWP-15371-2025 authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 312 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Hari Vishnu Kamath vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others on 9 December, 1954

"13. A writ of certiorari is to be issued over a decision when the court finds that the process does not conform to the law or statute. In other words, courts are not expected to substitute themselves with the decision-making authority while finding fault with the process along with the reasons assigned. Such a writ is not expected to be issued to remedy all violations. When a tribunal is constituted, it is expected to go into the issues of fact and law, including a statutory violation. A question as to whether such a violation would be over a mandatory prescription as against a discretionary one is primarily within the domain of the 16 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 23:12:11 ::: CWP-14378-2024 -17- CWP-15371-2025 Tribunal. So also, the issue governing waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel. We wish to place reliance on the decision of this Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1954) 2 SCC 881 : (1955) 1 SCR 1104] :
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 1109 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next