Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.22 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
66. We may also observe that in some High Courts
there is a tendency of entertaining petitions under
Article 227 of the Constitution by terming them as
writ petitions. This is sought to be justified on an
erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya Dev
[Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6
SCC 675] and in view of the recent amendment to
Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the
Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. It
is urged that as a result of the amendment, scope
of Section 115 CPC has been curtailed. In our
view, even if the scope of Section 115 CPC is
curtailed that has not resulted in expanding the
High Court's power of superintendence. It is too
well known to be reiterated that in exercising its
jurisdiction, High Court must follow the regime of
law.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Radhey Shyam & Anr vs Chhabi Nath & Ors on 15 April, 2009
27. Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of civil
courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under
Article 226. We are also in agreement with the view
[Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616] of
the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus does not lie
against a private person not discharging any public duty.
Scope of Article 227 is different from Article 226.
Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005
Similarly, in Salem
Advocate Bar Assn. (2) [Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v.
Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344] in para 40, reference
to Surya Dev Rai [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai,
(2003) 6 SCC 675] is for the same purpose. We are,
thus, unable to accept the submission of the learned
counsel for the respondent.
Shail vs Manoj Kumar And Ors on 29 March, 2004
In Shail [Shail v.
Manoj Kumar, (2004) 4 SCC 785 : 2004 SCC (Cri)
1401], though reference has been made to Surya Dev
Rai [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC
675] , the same is only for the purpose of scope of power
under Article 227 as is clear from para 3 of the said
judgment. There is no discussion on the issue of
maintainability of a petition under Article 226.
M/S Mahendra Saree Emporium vs G.V. Srinivasa Murthy on 27 August, 2004
In
Patna High Court CWJC No.13753 of 2014 dt.12-12-2024
8/9
Mahendra Saree Emporium (2) [Mahendra Saree
Emporium (2) v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy, (2005) 1 SCC
481] , reference to Surya Dev Rai [Surya Dev Rai v.
Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] is made in para 9
of the judgment only for the proposition that no
subordinate legislation can whittle down the jurisdiction
conferred by the Constitution.
Radhey Shyam & Anr vs Chhabi Nath & Ors on 26 February, 2015
3. It is further submitted that in view of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and
Another (supra), The Rules of The High Court at Patna have
Patna High Court CWJC No.13753 of 2014 dt.12-12-2024
9/9
also been amended and vide Rule 6 of Chapter IIIA, it has been
stipulated as follows :-