Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.20 seconds)The Representation Of The People Act, 1950
Section 22 in The Representation Of The People Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. vs Sukumar Mukherjee on 30 August, 1950
About a year after the decision in Dalmia Jain Airways' case (SB), a similar view of Article 227 was expressed by this Court in the case of Haripada Dutta v. Ananta Mondal , though in somewhat different but detailed language, which finds ample support and justification, from the recent observations of the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa , which show that in appropriate cases, the Article may be employed to correct, at least, errors of jurisdiction, to wit, assumption of excessive jurisdiction or illegal or irregular exercise of it or refusal or failure to exercise the same,--to put the matter at Its lowest,--and it would certainly cover cases of non-exercise of jurisdiction as much as cases of excessive exercise of jurisdiction, the one, pointing to the lower limit, and the other to the higher, of the phrase "keeping within the bounds of authority" as used in the decisions cited. That view also follows from the explanatory statement, appended by Rankin, C. J. and Harries, C. J. to
the phrase in question, to the effect that the exercise of the power of supervision "to keep the inferior tribunals within the bounds of their authority" would be "to nee that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner."
Manmatha Nath Biswas vs Emperor on 2 December, 1932
25. The language, indeed, was borrowed by Harries, C. J. from the observations of Rankin, C. J., who applied it much earlier (vide Manmatha Nath v. Emperor to describe the powers of this Court under Section 107 of the Government of India Act 1915, which was equated in this respect to Section 15 of the Charter or the High Courts Act.
Haripada Dutta vs Ananta Mandal on 4 September, 1951
About a year after the decision in Dalmia Jain Airways' case (SB), a similar view of Article 227 was expressed by this Court in the case of Haripada Dutta v. Ananta Mondal , though in somewhat different but detailed language, which finds ample support and justification, from the recent observations of the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa , which show that in appropriate cases, the Article may be employed to correct, at least, errors of jurisdiction, to wit, assumption of excessive jurisdiction or illegal or irregular exercise of it or refusal or failure to exercise the same,--to put the matter at Its lowest,--and it would certainly cover cases of non-exercise of jurisdiction as much as cases of excessive exercise of jurisdiction, the one, pointing to the lower limit, and the other to the higher, of the phrase "keeping within the bounds of authority" as used in the decisions cited. That view also follows from the explanatory statement, appended by Rankin, C. J. and Harries, C. J. to
the phrase in question, to the effect that the exercise of the power of supervision "to keep the inferior tribunals within the bounds of their authority" would be "to nee that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner."
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde And ... vs Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale on 25 September, 1959
About a year after the decision in Dalmia Jain Airways' case (SB), a similar view of Article 227 was expressed by this Court in the case of Haripada Dutta v. Ananta Mondal , though in somewhat different but detailed language, which finds ample support and justification, from the recent observations of the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa , which show that in appropriate cases, the Article may be employed to correct, at least, errors of jurisdiction, to wit, assumption of excessive jurisdiction or illegal or irregular exercise of it or refusal or failure to exercise the same,--to put the matter at Its lowest,--and it would certainly cover cases of non-exercise of jurisdiction as much as cases of excessive exercise of jurisdiction, the one, pointing to the lower limit, and the other to the higher, of the phrase "keeping within the bounds of authority" as used in the decisions cited. That view also follows from the explanatory statement, appended by Rankin, C. J. and Harries, C. J. to
the phrase in question, to the effect that the exercise of the power of supervision "to keep the inferior tribunals within the bounds of their authority" would be "to nee that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner."
C. Sarvothama Rao vs The Chairman, Municipal Council on 11 January, 1923
29. Turning to his latter aspect, we are inclined to think that, if the petitioner, in the instant case, cannot get relief here against the wrong, which has been done to him, by the improper (illegal) rejection of his nomination paper, as aforesaid, he will certainly suffer irreparable loss and injury, as pointed out by Wallace, J. in the case of Sarvothama Rao v. Chairman, Municipal Council, Saidapet, AIR 1923 Mad 475, whose relevant observations may be quoted as follows:
Y. Desi Chettiar vs J.K. Chinnasami Chettiar, President, ... on 14 August, 1928
30. It is true that, in the later case of Desi Chettiar v. Chinnaswami Chettiar, AIR 1928 Mad 1271, the same learned Judge (Wallace, J.), preferred to take a somewhat different view, but, with all respect,--and even apart from certain-distinctions which are patent as between the two cases and the somewhat unintelligible position of a post-election petition in an election, which appears to have been stayed,--it seems tous that his (Wallace, J.'s) earlier observation-would be more appropriate and applicable 'to a. case like the present.