Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.41 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Public Prosecutor, Madras vs R. Raju & Anr. Etc on 8 August, 1972
In view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the context of the interpretation of Section 40(2) in Public Prosecutor, Madras v. R. Raju 1978 E.L.T, (J. 410) which was relied on by the Division Bench of this Court referred to already and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Trustees, Bombay Port v. Premier Automobiles (AIR 1974 SC 923) where the case of the Public Prosecutor, Madras v. R. Raju (1978 E.L.T. (J. 410) was approvingly referred. 1 do not consider it necessary to refer to the decisions cited by the learned counsel decided prior to the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court.
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh on 30 September, 1957
"On the authorities referred to above it appears to us that there may conceivably be cases-and the instant case is in point-where the error, irregularlty or illegality touching jurisdiction or procedure committed by an inferior court or tribunal of first instance is so patent and loudly obtruc-ive that it leaves on its decision an indelible stamp of infirmity or voice which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal or revision. If an inferior Court or tribunal of first instance acts wholly without jurisdiction or manifestly conducts the proceedings before it in a manner which is contrary to the rules of natural justice and all accepted rules of procedure and which offends the superior Court may, we think, quite properly exercise its power to issue the prerogative writ of certiorari to correct the error of the Court or tribunal of fist instance, even if an appeal to another inferior Court or tribunal was available and recourse was not had to it or if recourse was had to it, it confirmed what ex facie was a nullity for reasons aforementioned."
Trustees Of Port Of Bombay vs The Premier Automobiles Ltd. And ... on 15 February, 1974
In view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the context of the interpretation of Section 40(2) in Public Prosecutor, Madras v. R. Raju 1978 E.L.T, (J. 410) which was relied on by the Division Bench of this Court referred to already and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Trustees, Bombay Port v. Premier Automobiles (AIR 1974 SC 923) where the case of the Public Prosecutor, Madras v. R. Raju (1978 E.L.T. (J. 410) was approvingly referred. 1 do not consider it necessary to refer to the decisions cited by the learned counsel decided prior to the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court.
The Companies Act, 1956
The Government Of India And Ors. vs The National Tobacco Co. Of India Ltd., ... on 11 March, 1977
19. A Full Bench of this Court ruled in Government of India v. National Tobacco Company Limited, (1977) 1 APLJ 224 at p. 243. Pra. explaining the implication of Sub-article (3) of Article 226 thus :
Baradakanta Mishra vs The Registrar Of Orissa High Court & Anr on 19 November, 1973
22. Judged by the criteria came to be laid down by the Supreme Court, there is no question of merger of the order passed by the original authority which is void. Therefore the doctrine of merger does not apply to a case where the order passed by the original authority is inherently void for want of jurisdiction.
1