Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.33 seconds)
Raghu Nath vs Secy. Railway Deptt. (U.O.I.) New Delhi ... on 12 January, 2010 cites

L. Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 18 March, 1997

13. In our country, in different High Courts, there are different rules of hearing the matters under Article 226 of the Constitution. Some where it is to be heard by single Judge and some where it is to be heard by Division Bench and likewise, but in L. Chandra Kumar's case (supra) it has been categorically ruled that the Central Administrative Tribunal is a Court of first instance, i.e., first hearing will be made by the Tribunal and thereafter against the decision of the Tribunal, it will be heard by the Division Bench of the High Court. In this way, the larger Bench of Supreme Court has propounded a principle of universal application to all the High Courts that the matters arising out of the decisions of the Tribunal, will be cognizable, exclusively by the Division Bench of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Tribunals will hear the matters as a Court of first instance. Therefore, if the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, ignores this aspect and holds that the alternative forum of adjudication can be ignored and even in such matters High Court can be directly approached, it would lead to an anomalous position and would frustrate the objective sought to be achieved by creating the Tribunal as a Court of first instance."
Supreme Court of India Cites 86 - Cited by 2564 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document
1