Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.45 seconds)Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Union Of India And Anr vs M. Bhaskar And Ors on 6 May, 1996
The learned counsel could not raise any
contention of substance questioning the correctness of the
decision in the aforementioned case except stating that many
of the persons who were parties in the cases decided by the
Tribunal taking the contra- view and some others had been
given benefit on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal
and some of them have even got further promotions which have
become vulnerable in view of the decision of this Court in
M. Bhaskar case (supra).
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 144 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Delhi Judicial Service Association Tis ... vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. Etc-Etc on 11 September, 1991
"Apart from the fact that these observations are made
with reference to the powers of this Court under Article 142
which are in the nature of supplementary powers and not with
reference to this Court's power under Article 129, the said
observations have been explained by this Court in its later
decisions in Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of
Gujarat and Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India. In
para 51 of the former decision, it has been, with respect,
rightly pointed out that the said observations were made
with regard to the extent of this Court's power under
Article 142(1) in the context of fundamental rights. Those
observations have no bearing on the present issue. No
doubt, it was further observed there that those observations
have no bearing on the question in issue in that case as
there was no provision in any substantive law restricting
this Court's power to quash proceedings pending before
subordinate courts. But it was also added there that this
Court's power under Article 142(1) to do complete justice
was entirely of a different level and of a different
quality. Any prohibition or restriction contained in
ordinary laws cannot act as a limitation on the
constitutional power of this Court. Once this Court is in
seisin of a matter before it, it has power to issue any
order or direction to do complete justice in the matter.
Prem Chand Garg vs Excise Commissioner, U. P., Allahabad on 6 November, 1962
584) relating to a proceeding for criminal contempt a Bench
of three learned Judges of this Court dealing with the
priliminary objection raised on behalf of the contemner and
the State Bar Council held that this Court is not only the
highest court of record, but under various provisions of the
Constitution, is also charged with the duties and
responsibilities of correcting the lower courts and
tribunals and or protecting them from those whose misconduct
tends to prevent the due performance of their duties.
Therein this Court distinguished the decisions in Prem Chand
Garg (supra) and relied on the decisions in Delhi Judicial
Service Association vs. State of Gujarat (1991)4 SCC 406
and Union Carbide Corporation.etc. vs. Union of India
(1991) 4 SCC 584, and this Court made the following relevant
observations in connection with the power vested under
Article 142 :
Grindlays Bank Limited vs The Income Tax Officer, 'H' Ward ... on 15 January, 1980
"This Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. ITO held that
the High Court while exercising its power under Article 226
the interest of justice requires that any undeserved or
unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction
of the court must be neutralised. It was further held that
the institution of the litigation by it should not be
permitted to confer an unfair advantage on the party
responsible for it. In the light of that law and in view of
the power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution this
Court, while exercising its jurisdiction would do complete
justice and neutralise the unfair advantage gained by the 50
operators including the appellants in dragging the
litigation to run the stage carriages on the approved route
or area or portion thereof and forfeited their right to
hearing of the objections filed by them to the draft scheme
dated February 26, 1959."