Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (2.29 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 107 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Article 3 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
National Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Nicolletta Rohtagi And Ors on 17 September, 2002
6. The right of appeal is a statutory right and where the law provides remedy by filing an appeal on limited grounds, the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by filing a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution on the premise that the insurer has limited grounds available for challenging the award given by the Tribunal. Section 149(2) of the Act limits the insurer to file an appeal on those enumerated grounds and the appeal being a product of the statute it is not open to an insurer to take any plea other than those provided under Section 149(2) of the Act (see National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, (2002) 7 SCC 456). This being the legal position, the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the insurer was wholly misconceived. Where a statutory right to file an appeal has been provided for, it is not open to the High Court to entertain a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Even if where a remedy by way of an appeal has not been provided for against the order and judgment of a District Judge, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to file a revision before the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Where remedy for filing a revision before the High Court under Section 115 CPC has been expressly barred by a State enactment, only in such case a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would lie and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. As a matter of illustration, 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 CPC, in such a situation a writ petition under Article 227 would lie and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, where the State Legislature has barred a remedy of filing a revision petition before the High Court under Section 115 CPC, 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 the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Jasbir Singh Chhabra & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 9 March, 2010
In the case of Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2006) 8 SCC 294 the Supreme Court observed:-
S.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 December, 1981
In the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, in the aforesaid cases, it can safely be concluded that :