Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.85 seconds)Section 27 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
M/S. Estralla Rubber vs Dass Estate (Private) Ltd on 12 September, 2001
16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227,
this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd6 has
observed : (SCC pp. 101-102, para 6)
"6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and
jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is examined and explained in a
number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of
power under this article involves a duty on the High
Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the
bounds of their authority and to see that they do the
duty expected or required of them in a legal manner.
The High Court is not vested with any unlimited
prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong
decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of
the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this
power and interfering with the orders of the courts or
tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of
duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of
law or justice, where if the High Court does not
interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is
also well settled that the High Court while acting under
this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate
court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of
the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not
apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can
set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior
court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify
or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person
can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the
court or tribunal has come to."
Section 277 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S Garment Craft vs Prakash Chand Goel on 11 January, 2022
In either case, however, the Court exercising jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has to remain within the limits
of its jurisdiction as delineated in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P)
Ltd.6, Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel7, Puri Investments v.
Young Friends and Co.9 and Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance
Co. Ltd.10.
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Waryam Singh And Another vs Amarnath And Another on 19 January, 1954
v. Ram Tahel Ramnand11 in para 12 has stated that the power
under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended to be used
sparingly and only in appropriate cases, for the purpose of
keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the
bounds of their authority and, not for correcting mere errors.
Reference also has been made in this regard to the case
Waryam Singh v. Amarnath12.
Sandeep Jain vs Akash Gupta & Ors on 4 October, 2021
4. He submits that attachment proceedings, toward execution of
order dated 5th January 2018 passed by the learned NCDRC, are in
process. At this point, he submits, therefore, the learned NCDRC has
exceeded its jurisdiction in summoning the petitioners without due
justification therefor. Mr. Nayar has placed reliance, to support his
submissions, on two recent orders passed by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in Sylvanus Properties Ltd. v. Paresh Pratap Rai Mehta1
and Sandeep Jain v. Akash Gupta2 as well as an earlier judgment, by
A.K. Sikri, J.(as he then was) sitting as a single Judge of this Court in
(Dr.) V.P. Mainra v. Dawsons Leasing Ltd.3.
Sh. Prakash Chand Goel vs M/S Garment Craft on 9 January, 2019
Garment Craft7
"15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly
of the view that the impugned order [Prakash Chand
Goel v. Garment Craft14] is contrary to law and cannot be
sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from
the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court
exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of
first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts
upon which the determination under challenge is based.
Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or
even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be
supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision
on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or
tribunal.