Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)
State Bank Of India And Another vs Presiding Officer And Another on 14 July, 2023 cites

Kurukshetra University vs Prithvi Singh on 15 February, 2018

(2014) 9 SCC 315 and Kurukshetra University v. Prithvi Singh, (2018) 4 SCC 483. The above cited judgments, however, will not apply to the facts of instant cases for the reason that in both these cases the scope and power of judicial review of the courts while dealing with the validity of quantum of r punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was in question, whereas in the case before us the question relates to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court-cum-
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 32 - A M Sapre - Full Document

Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963

not in accordance with law shall have to be recorded with reasons in order to assail the finding of the Tribunal or the Labour Court. It is not for the High Court to go into the factual aspects of the matter and there is an existing limitation on the High Court to that effect. In the event, however the finding of fact is based on any misappreciation of evidence, that would be deemed to be an error of law which can be r corrected by a writ of certiorari. The law is well settled to the effect that finding of the Labour Court cannot be challenged in a proceeding in a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Labour Court was insufficient or inadequate though, however, perversity of the order would warrant intervention of the High Court. The observation, as above, stands well settled since the decision of this Court in Syed Yaqoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1424 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

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 [(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: (SCC p. 348) "49. (m) ... The power of interference under [Article 227] is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2023 20:34:18 :::CIS 15 fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the .
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 2466 - Full Document
1   2 Next