Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 52 in The Indian Easements Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr vs Rajendra Shankar Patil on 23 July, 2010
15 The Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr.
Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has enumerated
19/21
ssm 20 wp1654. & 1655.2000.doc
the principles in the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution of India. It is held that, the High Courts cannot, at the
drop of a hat, in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution,
interfere with the Orders of tribunals or courts interior to it. Nor can it, in
exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of the court or
tribunal subordinate to it. In cases, where an alternative statutory mode of
redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the
exercise of this power by the High Court. That, the High Court can interfere
in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent
perversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where
there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles
of natural justice have been flouted.
Radhey Shyam & Anr vs Chhabi Nath & Ors on 26 February, 2015
The afore-stated view expressed in the case of Shalini S. Shetty
20/21
ssm 21 wp1654. & 1655.2000.doc
(Supra) has been further affirmed by the larger Bench of the Supreme Court
in the case of Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors. Reported in
(2015) 5 SCC 423.
Baldev Singh & Ors. Etc vs Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc on 3 August, 2006
In rejoinder to the arguments advanced by Mr. Gavnekar,
the learned counsel for the Respondent, Mr. Thorat by placing reliance on a
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh & Ors. Vs.
Manohar Singh & Anr., reported in 2006 (5) Mh.L.J. 634,submitted that,
inconsistent pleas can be raised by the Defendant in the written statement,
though the same may not be permissible in the case of plaint. He submitted
that, therefore the plea taken by the Petitioner in his written statement
contending that, the agreement in question was for conducting business and
also claiming tenancy, is thus permissible.
C.M. Beena And Anr vs P.N. Ramachandra Rao on 22 March, 2004
By relying on
a decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of C.M. Beena & Anr. Vs. P.N.
Ramchandra Rao, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 595, he submitted that, there are
distinguishing features in a 'Conducting Agreement' and 'Licence
Agreement'. That, user of nomenclature relating to either terms by itself is
not decisive.