Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)

Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr vs Rajendra Shankar Patil on 23 July, 2010

21. In exercise of powers under Article 227 , this Court is not expected to interfere with a finding within the jurisdiction of the authorities constituted under the Tenancy Act .except where the findings were perverse and not based on any material evidence or it resulted in manifest injustice. Except to the limited extent indicated above, this Court has no jurisdiction. Upon perusal of the concurrent findings, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of fact. The Sairaj 14 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 01:36:30 ::: wp1745-97f.doc Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty vs Rajendra Shankar Patil1 has held that in exercise of its power of superintendence, the High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words, the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 2466 - Full Document
1