cites: 27569442

Orissa State Financial Corporation vs Narsingh Ch. Nayak And Ors. on 7 March, 2002

44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa State Financial Corporation vs. Narsingh Ch.Nayak and others, [2003(10) SCC 261] observed that while exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court has wide power to pass appropriate order and issue proper direction as necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. However, it was pointed out that the High Court cannot ignore the scope of the Writ Petition and the nature of the dispute.

Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Kamini Jaiswal vs Union Of India on 14 November, 2017

“31. .. The cases cannot be assigned by judicial order. Such judicial order is simply to be ignored as it is not open to the Judges to decide which matter is to be heard by whom as laid down by the Constitution Bench.” http://www.judis.nic.in Basic changes to the Writ Petition consequent to the impugned order:

Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 18 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

State Of U.P. vs Subhash Chandra Jaiswal on 29 November, 2016

41. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Subhash Chandra Jaiswal, (2017) 5 SCC 163, cited with approval the following three earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, indicating the parameters for deciding the lis.

Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 22 - Cited by 8 - D Misra - Full Document

Subrata Roy Sahara vs Uoi & Ors on 6 May, 2014

(i) In Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470, it has been held that a Judge is to decide every dispute, in consonance with law. One is not free to decide in consonance with his will, but must decide in accord with law. It has been further held that the concept of a Judge being an individual possessing power and authority, is but a delusion.

Supreme Court of India Cites 92 - Cited by 148 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Gurdev Kaur & Ors vs Kaki & Ors on 18 April, 2006

(ii) In Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki , (2007) 1 SCC 546] it has been observed thus:

Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 515 - Full Document

Census Commissioner & Ors vs R.Krishamurthy on 7 November, 2014

In Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy (2015) 2 SCC 796, the three-

Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 146 - D Misra - Full Document

B. Srinivasa Reddy vs Karnataka Urban Water Supply And ... on 3 April, 2006

43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Association, [2006 (11) SCC 731], held that in service matters, only the http://www.judis.nic.in non appointees can assail the legality of the appointment.

Karnataka High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 212 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Om Prakash Chautala vs Kanwar Bhan & Ors on 31 January, 2014

45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Chautala vs. Kanwar Bhan, (2014(5) SCC 417), emphasized the position of a Judge as an adjudicator in the following words:-

Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 74 - D Misra - Full Document

Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 5 - Cited by 1058585

States Of Rajasthan vs Prakash Chand & Ors on 2 December, 1997

27. The position of the Hon'ble Chief Justice as the Master of the Roster was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand, 1998(1) SCC 1. The prerogative of the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of Benches and allotment of cases http://www.judis.nic.in was indicated in paragraph No.59 of the judgment in Prakash Chand :-

Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 166 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results

Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]