Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.27 seconds)
Dharminder Singh & Another vs Non-Applicants/Respondents on 20 May, 2024 cites

Sankatha Singh vs State Of U.P on 25 January, 1962

"5. The appellant points out that he invoked the inherent power of the High Court saved by Section 482 of the Code and that notwithstanding the prohibition imposed by Section 362, the High Court had the power to grant relief. Now it is well settled that the inherent power of the court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code (Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR 1962 SC 1208: 1962 Supp 2 SCR 817: (1962) 2 Cri LJ 288] ). It is true that the prohibition in Section 362 against the court altering or reviewing its judgment is subject to what is "otherwise provided by this Court or by any other law for the time being in force". Those words, however, refer to those provisions only where the court has been expressly authorised by the Code or other law to alter or review its judgment. The inherent power of the court is not contemplated by the saving provision contained in Section 362 and, therefore, the attempt to invoke that power can be of no avail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 62 - R Dayal - Full Document

State Of Orissa vs Ram Chander Agarwala Etc on 5 October, 1978

However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ram Chander Agarwala (supra), after specific reference to the Full Bench decision in Raj Narain (supra), has held in paragraph 20 that the provisions of Section 561-A of the Code cannot be invoked in the exercise of power which is specifically prohibited by the Code. As a result, the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the contention on behalf of the State of Orissa and held that the High Court has no power to revive its own order."
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 148 - P S Kailasam - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next