Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.35 seconds)
Rohitsinh vs M/S on 16 June, 2010 cites

Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958

Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque 1955 (1) SCR 1104, Nagandra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam 1958 SCR 1240 and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh AIR 1960 SC 1168).
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 746 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani And Anr vs Pratapsing. Mohansingh Pardeshi ... on 18 September, 1995

This court again clearly reiterated the legal position in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576. The court again cautioned that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 239 - K Singh - Full Document

Mrs. Rena Drego vs Lalchand Soni, Etc on 5 March, 1998

27. A three-Judge Bench of this court in Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand Soni & Others (1998) 3 SCC 341 again abundantly made it clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 150 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next