Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (1.80 seconds)
Scottlane Poverty Eradication Centre & ... vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 May, 2013 cites

Hari Vishnu Kamath vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others on 9 December, 1954

Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, 1955-1 SCR 1104: ((S) AIR 1955 SC 233): Nagendra Nath v. Commr. of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240:
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 1109 - Full Document

Veerappa Pillai vs Raman & Raman Ltd. And Others on 17 March, 1952

"21. Then the question is whether there are proper grounds for the issue of 'certiorari' in the present case. There was considerable argument before us as to the character and scope of the writ of 'certiorari' and the conditions under which it could be issued. The question has been considered by this Court in 'Parry and Co. v. Commercial Employees' Association, Madras', AIR 1952 SC 179 (L): -'Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd.'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 465 - N C Aiyar - Full Document

Ebrahim Aboobakar And Another vs Custodian General Ofevacuee Property on 26 May, 1952

AIR 1952 SC 192 (M); - 'Ebrahim Aboobaker v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property New Delhi', AIR 1952 SC 319 (N), and quite recently in AIR 1954 SC 440(C). On these authorities, the following propositions may be taken as established: (1) 'Certiorari' will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) 'Certiorari' will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The Court issuing a writ of 'certiorari' acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review findings or fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal, even if they be erroneous. This is on the principle that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right, and when the 9 Legislature does not choose to confer a right of appeal against that decision, it would be defeating its purpose and policy if a superior Court were to re-hear the case on the evidence, and substitute its own findings in 'certiorari'. These propositions are well settled and not in dispute."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 118 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

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

Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, 1955-1 SCR 1104: ((S) AIR 1955 SC 233): Nagendra Nath v. Commr. of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240:
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 746 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next