Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (0.27 seconds)
A.M. Shamsudeen And Ors. vs The Dist. Judge And Ors. on 5 March, 1990 cites

M. Runganatha Thathachariar vs Krishnaswami Thathachariar And Ors. on 21 March, 1923

In Ranganatha Thathachariar v. Krishnaswami Thathachariar I.L.R. Vol. XLVII Madras 130 a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:(at p. 143) That, it is conceded, depends first on whether the position of the District Court under the Scheme, Clause(10), is that of persona designata and not of a Court which will, in case its order is appealable under any appropriate provision of law, be subject to our appellate jurisdiction.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

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

...Power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors...." This statement of law was quoted with approval in the subsequent decision of this Court in Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. of Hills Division and it was pointed out by Sinha J. as he then was speaking on behalf of the Court in that case: "It is thus, clear that the powers of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution with orders of judicial or quasi-judicial naure, are not greater than the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226 the power of interference may extend to quashing an impugned order on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. But under Article 227 of the Constitution the power of interference is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 746 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next