Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.33 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 5 in The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Dinabandhu Sahu vs Jadumoni Mangaraj And Others on 25 April, 1954
L9Sup CI/67- 5
(2) I. L. R. 13 Mad. 269-
7 76
exercised upon principles which are well
understood; the words "sufficient cause
receiving a liberal construction so as
to advance substantial justice when no negli-
gence not inaction nor want of bona fides is
imputable to the appellant."'
This decision received-the approval, of this Court in
Dinabandhu Sahu v. Jadumoni Mangaraj and others(1) and
Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotetal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.(2).
The words "sufficient cause" in the second proviso to s.
20(2) should receive a similar liberal construction.
No appeal lies from an order of the Authority, under s. 20.
But the High Court is vested with the power
of judicial superintendence over the tribunal under Art. 227
of the Constitution.
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 20 in The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958
This power is not,greater than the
power under Art. 226 and is limited to seeing that the
tribunal functions within the limits of its authority, see
Nagendra Nath Bora and another v. The Commissioner of Hills
Division and Appeals, Assam, and others(3). The High Court
will not review the discretion of the Authority judicially
exercised, but it- may interfere if the exercise of the
discretion is capricious or perverse or ultra vires. In
Sitaram Ramcharan, etc. v. M. N. Nagarshana and
others(4)this Court held that a finding of fact by the
authority under the similarly worded second proviso to s. 15
(2) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 could not be challenged
in a petition under Art. 227. The High Court may refuse to
interfere. ,under Art. 227 unless there is grave miscarriage
age of justice.
Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd on 4 May, 1961
L9Sup CI/67- 5
(2) I. L. R. 13 Mad. 269-
7 76
exercised upon principles which are well
understood; the words "sufficient cause
receiving a liberal construction so as
to advance substantial justice when no negli-
gence not inaction nor want of bona fides is
imputable to the appellant."'
This decision received-the approval, of this Court in
Dinabandhu Sahu v. Jadumoni Mangaraj and others(1) and
Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotetal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.(2).
The words "sufficient cause" in the second proviso to s.
20(2) should receive a similar liberal construction.
No appeal lies from an order of the Authority, under s. 20.
But the High Court is vested with the power
of judicial superintendence over the tribunal under Art. 227
of the Constitution.