Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.35 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
P. Anand Gajapathi Raju & Ors vs P.V.G. Raju (Died ) & Ors on 28 March, 2000
This Court in P. Anand Gajapathi Raju and others vs.
P.V.G. Raju (died) and others has held that there is no
provision in the new Act for referring the matter to
arbitrator by intervention of the Court. However, if during
the pendency of the proceedings in the court parties have
entered into an arbitration agreement then they have to
proceed in accordance with the provisions of the new Act and
when award is made it is a decree and it cannot be filed in
the High Court and it has to be filed in the court as
defined in clause (e) of Section 2 of the new Act for its
enforcement as a decree under Section 36 of the new Act. If
there is challenge to the award recourse has to be under
Section 34 of the new Act.
U.P. State Co-Operative Land ... vs Chandra Bhan Dubey And Ors on 18 December, 1998
In
U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. vs.
Chandra Bhan Dubey & Ors. , where one of us (Wadhwa, J.)
was a party, this Court after examining various decisions of
the courts on the power of the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution observed that the language of Article
226 of the Constitution does not admit of any limitation on
the powers of the High Court for the exercise of
jurisdiction thereunder though by various decisions of this
Court with varying and divergent views, it has been held
that jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised only
when a body or authority, the decision of which is
complained, was exercising its power in the discharge of
public duty and that writ is a public law remedy. This
Court then observed : "... [i]t may not be necessary to
examine any further the question if Article 226 makes a
divide between public law and private law. Prima facie from
the language of the Article 226 there does not appear to
exist such a divide. To understand the explicit language of
the Article it is not necessary for us to rely on the
decision of English Courts as rightly cautioned by the
earlier Benches of this Court. It does appear to us that
Article 226 while empowering the High Court for issue of
orders or directions to any authority or person does not
make any such difference between public functions and
private functions. It is not necessary for us in this case
to go into this question as to what is the nature, scope and
amplitude of the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. They are
certainly founded on the English system of jurisprudence.
Article 226 of the Constitution also speaks of directions
and orders which can be issued to any person or authority
including, in appropriate cases, any Government. Under
clause (1) of Article 367 unless the context otherwise
requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall, subject to
any adaptations and modifications that may be made therein
under Article 372 apply for the interpretation of the
Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an Act
of the Legislature of the Dominion of India. Person under
Section 2(42) of the General Clauses Act shall include any
company, or association or body of individuals, whether
incorporated or not. Constitution is not a statute. It is
a fountain head of all the statutes. When the language of
Article 226 is clear, we cannot put shackles on the High
Courts to limit their jurisdiction by putting an
interpretation on the words which would limit their
jurisdiction. When any citizen or person is wronged, the
High Court will step in to protect him, be that wrong be
done by the State, an instrumentality of the State, a
company or a cooperative society or association or body of
individuals whether incorporated or not, or even an
individual. Right that is infringed may be under Part III
of the Constitution or any other right which the law validly
made might confer upon him. But then the power conferred
upon the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution
is so vast, this court has laid down certain guidelines and
self-imposed limitations have been put there subject to
which High Courts would exercise jurisdiction, but those
guidelines cannot be mandatory in all circumstances. High
Court does not interfere when an equally efficacious
alternative remedy is available or when there is established
procedure to remedy a wrong or enforce a right. A party may
not be allowed to by-pass the normal channel of civil and
criminal litigation. High Court does not act like a
proverbial bull in china shop in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226.
A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 29 April, 1988
In
support of his submission Mr. Mohan referred to a
Constitution Bench decision of this Court in A.R. Antulay
vs. R.S. Nayak & Anr. where the Court had observed :
Municipal Board, Pratabgarh And Anr. vs Mahendra Singh Chawla And Ors. on 11 October, 1982
It was submitted by Mr. Krishnamani that in view of
the facts and circumstances of these cases when deaths
occurred due to electrocution and all this time has expired
it would not be equitable to send the respondents to take
proceedings in a civil court. He referred to a decision of
this Court in Municipal Board, Pratabgarh vs. Mahendra
Singh Chawla and others where this Court made following
observations: