Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.44 seconds)
S.Lakshmi Appukutty vs The District Collector on 10 October, 2022 cites

Dwarka Nath vs Income-Tax Officer, Special Circle ... on 29 March, 1965

In Dwarka Nath case [AIR 1966 SC 81 : (1965) 2 SCJ 296] the Supreme Court stated as under: (AIR pp. 84-85, para 4) ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 12 of 30 W.P.No.25504 of 2021 “4. … This article is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex facie confers a wide power on the High Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Constitution designedly used a wide language in describing the nature of the power, the purpose for which and the person or authority against whom it can be exercised. It can issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs as understood in England; but the scope of those writs also is widened by the use of the expression ‘nature’, for the said expression does not equate the writs that can be issued in India with those in England, but only draws an analogy from them. That apart, High Courts can also issue directions, orders or writs other than the prerogative writs. It enables the High Courts to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. Any attempt to equate the scope of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with that of the English courts to issue prerogative writs is to introduce the unnecessary procedural restrictions grown over the years in a comparatively small country like England with a unitary form of Government to a vast country like India functioning under a federal structure. Such a construction defeats the purpose of the article itself.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 339 - Full Document
1   2 Next