Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.37 seconds)
Arulmigu Akkaraipatti Ponkaliamman vs R.Periasamy on 2 January, 2023 cites

Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. vs Sukumar Mukherjee on 30 August, 1950

10. The Chief Justice Harries in the Full Bench decision in the case of Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. vs. Sukumar Mukherjee, reported in AIR 1951 Calcutta 193 (SB) (B), stated the principles on which the High Court can exercise its power under Article 227 very succinctly which would better, quote : “Though this Court has a right to interfere with decisions of Courts and tribunals under its power of superintendence, it appears to me that that Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2036 of 2022 right must be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 349 - Full Document

Manmathanath Kundu And Ors. vs Emperor on 9 February, 1933

The matter was considered by a Bench of this Court in Manmathanath vs. Emperor [AIR 1933 Calcutta 132]. In that case a Bench over which Sir George Rankin C. J. presided held that Section 107, Government of India Act (which roughly 2 corresponds to Article 227 of the Constitution), does not vest the High Court with limitless power, which may be exercised at the Court's discretion to remove the hardship of particular decisions. The power of superintendence it confers is a power of a known and well-recognised character and should be exercised on those judicial principles which give it its character. In general words, the High Court's power of superintendence is a power to keep Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner.”
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1