Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)
Bishnupriya Devi vs Ashoka Crokeries Ltd on 21 August, 2013 cites

Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003

12. The Supreme Court in the case of SURYA DEV RAI V. RAM CHANDER RAI AND OTHERS (Supra) has the occasion of referring to number of earlier judgments passed by the Supreme Court in all matters and has summarized the law governing the field. While discussing the distinction between a writ of certiorari under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. The Supreme Court in paragraph-25 of the said judgment has held that upon a review of decided cases and a survey of the occasions, wherein the High Courts have exercised jurisdiction to command a writ of certiorari or to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in the given facts and circumstances in a variety of cases, it seems that the distinction between the two jurisdictions stands almost obliterated in practice. Probably, this is the reason why it has become 7 customary with the lawyers labeling their petitions as one common under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Thereafter, the Supreme Court further held at paragraph-37 that a writ of certiorari is issued against the acts or proceedings of a judicial or quasi judicial body conferred with power to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects and obliged to act judicially. The Supreme Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the writ of certiorari is directed against the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate court, it can issue even if the lis is between two private parties. In the aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court has summarized the conclusions at pargraph-38. This Court finds it apposite to quote the same:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 3621 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Sadhana Lodh vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr on 24 January, 2003

In the case of Sadhana Lodh V. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another; AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 1561, a three Judge Bench, the Supreme Court has held that where a trial Court in a civil suit refused to grant temporary injunction and an appeal against refusal to grant injunction has been rejected and a State enactment has barred the remedy of filing revision under Section 115 of the Code, in such a situation a writ petition under Article 227 would lie and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is further held that whether the State legislature has barred a remedy of filing a revision petition before the High Court under Section 115 of the Code, no petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would lie for the reason that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is further held that the supervisory jurisdiction 6 conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior Court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. It is further held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is further held that it is not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 1434 - Full Document
1   2 Next