Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)
Babubhai Muljibhai Patel vs Nandlal Khodidas Barot & Ors on 17 September, 1974 cites

Smt. Gunwant Kaur And Ors. vs Municipal Committee, Bhatinda And Ors. on 4 December, 1969

The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right of relief, questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is no doubt discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises complex questions of fact, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute should not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition see Gunwant Kaur v. Bhatinda Municipality(1). If, however, on consideration of the nature of the controversy, the High Court decides, as in the present case, that it (1) A.I.R. 1970 S. C. 802.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 274 - J C Shah - Full Document

The Barium Chemicals Ltd. And Anr vs The Company Law Board And Others on 4 May, 1966

In some cases, however, where it is not possible for the court to arrive at a definite conclusion on account of there being affidavits of either side containing allegations and counter-allegations, it would not only be desirable but in the interest of justice the duty also of the court to summon a deponent for cross.- examination in order to arrive at the truth (see observations of Shelat J. in Barium Chemical's- Ltd. & Anr. v. The Company Law Board & Ors.(1). The fact that the court permits cross-examination of some of the deponents in a writ petition does not warrant the proposition that the court is bound to permit cross-examination of each and every one of the deponents whom a party wishes to cross-examine. In a case like the present where as many as 40 persons filed affidavits in support of one party and 27 persons filed affidavits in support of the opposite party, the High Court, in our opinion, was well justified in the exercise of its discretion in selecting such persons whom it considered to be really important Ind crucial for the purpose of cross- examination. The effect of permitting cross-examination was not that the High Court was divested of all direction and control in the matter and was bound to call for cross- examination each and every deponent who was named by citlher party. We have reproduced above the material part of carder dated September 19, 1973 and it would appear therefrom that the High Court selected for cross-examination five of those councillors who, according to respondent No. 1, were present in the meeting wherein the motion of no confidence was alleged to have been passed but who, according to the appellant were not present in that meeting. These five councillors had filed affidavits in support of the case of respondent No. 1. In addition to these five councillors, the High Court selected Babubbai Dahyabhai Khamar, local correspondent of Gujarat Samachar, who claimed to have been present in the Council Hall at the time of the above meeting and where sent a report about the proceedings of that meeting to the Gujarat Samachar. From amongst the deponents who had filed affidavits in support of the case of the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 688 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document
1