Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.33 seconds)
D.Ravikumar vs The Management on 30 April, 2013 cites

Kaushalya Devi And Ors. vs Bachittar Singh And Ors. on 8 April, 1959

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. Ahmed Ishaque (1955-1 SCR 1104: Nagendra Nath v. The Commissioner of Hills Division (AIR 1958 SC 398), and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh (AIR 1960 SC 1168).
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 196 - Full Document

S.B. Patole & Ors vs Fujitsu Icim Ltd on 29 October, 2010

In S.B. PATOLE Vs. FUJITSU ICIM LIMITED (2011 (1) LLN 199 (BOM), it had been held that it may be that the closure of one Division or Department or Section of the undertaking or the industrial establishment would not lead to the closure of the industrial establishment. However, this does not mean that the division which is closed is not an integral part of the industrial establishment.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 3 - N Mhatre - Full Document
1   2 3 Next