Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)

Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003

"6. In our view, the impugned order is liable to be set aside because while deciding the writ petition filed by the respondent the learned Single Judge ignored the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The parameters for exercise of power by the High Court under that Article were considered by the two-Judge Bench of this Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Others, IV (2003) SLT 810=III (2003) CLT 133 (SC)=(2003) 6 SCC 675. After considering various facets of the issue, the two-Judge Bench culled out the following principles:
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 3621 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Mohd. Yunus vs Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors on 4 October, 1983

(9) In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India unlike English Courts has almost obliterated the distinction between the two jurisdictions. While exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate Courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate Court as to the manner in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate cases itself make an order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate Court as the Court should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case.' Page 15 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 00:15:35 IST 2021 C/SCA/14774/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2021 (II) Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and ors.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 579 - A P Sen - Full Document
1   2 Next