Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (7.40 seconds)
Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia Regional ... vs Smt. Kanchan Bai on 16 December, 2015 cites

Hansa Devi vs Chandar Singh on 25 August, 2014

Then in the instant case we find that such is not the case and recently this Court under similar circumstances in the matter of Smt. Hansa Devi and another Vs. Chandar Singh and others in Writ Appeal No.691/2014 on 05.02.2015 held that when it is clear power of superintendence has been exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the writ appeal cannot be entertained. And in the present case also, we 11 find that the Writ Court has exercised his power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when it has considered the findings of the facts arrived by the Collector and the Board of Revenue.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Manoj Kumar vs Board Of Revenue And Ors. on 2 November, 2007

Keeping in view the judgments delivered by this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. Board of Revenue and others reported in 2007 (4) MPHT 545(FB), Jaidev Siddha Vs. Jaiprakash Siddha reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 595 and the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram Cement reported in AIR 2009 SC 713, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was exercising power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, remedy of intra-court appeal is not available In the light of the aforesaid, as it was purely a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the present writ appeal filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is not at all maintainable.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 50 - D Misra - Full Document

Dr. Jaidev Siddha And Ors. vs Jaiprakash Siddha And Ors. on 19 July, 2007

Keeping in view the judgments delivered by this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. Board of Revenue and others reported in 2007 (4) MPHT 545(FB), Jaidev Siddha Vs. Jaiprakash Siddha reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 595 and the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram Cement reported in AIR 2009 SC 713, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was exercising power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, remedy of intra-court appeal is not available In the light of the aforesaid, as it was purely a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the present writ appeal filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is not at all maintainable.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Ramesh Chandra Sankla Etc vs Vikram Cement Etc on 8 July, 2008

Keeping in view the judgments delivered by this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. Board of Revenue and others reported in 2007 (4) MPHT 545(FB), Jaidev Siddha Vs. Jaiprakash Siddha reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 595 and the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram Cement reported in AIR 2009 SC 713, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was exercising power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, remedy of intra-court appeal is not available In the light of the aforesaid, as it was purely a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the present writ appeal filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is not at all maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 543 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1   2 Next