Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kerala High Court Act, 1958
Section 5 in Kerala High Court Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Umaji Keshao Meshram & Ors vs Radhikabai W/O Anandrao Banapurkar & ... on 14 March, 1986
In Umaji v. Radhikabai, AIR 1986 SC 1272, Supreme Court held that no appeal would lie against a single Judge's order or judgment passed inexercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Supreme Court considered in the said case the scope of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court. The reasoning is that since jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory in nature the resultant order cannot be treated as the product of exercise of original jurisdiction of the High Court.
Section 14 in The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
K.S. Ramachandran Nair And Ors. vs Samy Pillai Gouri Pillai And Ors. on 9 April, 1974
Therefore it further held that an intra Court appeal does not lie against the judgment of a single Judge of the Bombay High Court given in a petition under Article 227 by reason of such appeal being expressly barred by clause 15 of the Letters Patent of that High Court. This decision of the Supreme Court was distinguished by a Division Bench of this Court in Ramachandran Nair v. Krishna Pillai, 1991 (2) Ker LT 162, and held thus :
Sheikriyammada Nalla Koya vs Administrator, Union Territory Of ... on 19 October, 1966
4. A Division Bench of this Court in Nalla Koya v. Administrator, Union Territories of Laccadives, 1968 Ker LT 60, held to the effect that a writ of certiorari cannot be issued to a Civil Court.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Union Of India vs Bharat Vijay Mills Co. Ltd. on 6 April, 1984
8. The learned single Judge did not say that the impugned orders are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. After discussing the case on merits the original petition was dismissed by the learned Judge. That does not mean the impugned judgment is passed under Article 226. As observed by the Division Bench of this Court in Vijaya Mohini Mill's case, 1992 (1) Ker LT 404 (supra), we may assume that the learned single Judge would not have exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 since a writ of certiorari is not maintainable in respect of a judgment or order passed by the Civil Court. Therefore, it can be safely said that the learned single Judge has passed the impugned judgment only in exercise of power available under Article 227. The Division Bench in the above decision further observed thus :