Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.25 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K.V.S.Ram vs Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp on 14 January, 2015
14. Once the Labour Court has exercised
the discretion judicially, the High Court can
interfere with the award, only if it is satisfied
that the award of the Labour Court is vitiated
by any fundamental flaws. We do not find that
the award passed by the Labour Court suffers
from any such flaws. While interfering with the
award of the Labour Court, the High Court did
not keep in view the parameters laid down by
this Court for exercise of jurisdiction by the
High Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of
the Constitution of India and the impugned
judgment [K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore
23/50
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.39179 of 2015
Metropolitan Transport Corpn., Writ Appeal
No. 390 of 2008, decided on 3-9-2012 (KAR)]
cannot be sustained.
Article 51A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Punjab Water Supply Sewerage Board & Anr vs Ram Sajivan & Anr on 26 April, 2007
In the writ petition, while setting
aside the award of the Labour Court, the
learned Single Judge placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court passed in Punjab Water
Supply Sewerage Board v. Ram
14/50
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.39179 of 2015
Sajivan [Punjab Water Supply Sewerage
Board v. Ram Sajivan, (2007) 9 SCC 86 :
Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr vs Rajendra Shankar Patil on 23 July, 2010
16. It is relevant to mention
that in Shalini Shyam
Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar
Patil [Shalini Shyam
Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil,
(2010) 8 SCC 329 : (2010) 3 SCC
(Civ) 338] , with regard to the
limitations of the High Court to
exercise its jurisdiction under Article
227, it was held in para 49 that:
The State Of Mysore vs The Workers Of Gold Mines on 22 May, 1958
‘10. … The concept of social and
economic justice is a living concept
of revolutionary import; it gives
sustenance to the rule of law and
meaning and significance to the
ideal of welfare State.’
(State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold
Mines [State of Mysore v. Workers
of Gold Mines, AIR 1958 SC 923] ,
AIR p. 928, para 10.)”
Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd vs N.B. Narawade on 22 February, 2005
In the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. N.B.
Narawade, (2005) 3 SCC 134, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
in paragraph-20, held as follows:-
Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
In the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad
and Others vs. B. Karunakar and Others [(1993) 4 SCC 727],
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraphs 20 to 29, held as
under:-