Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.31 seconds)Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shyam Babu Verma And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 8 February, 1994
In Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. v. Union of India
& Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that since the amount has already been paid to the
petitioner for no fault of theirs, the said amount shall not be
recovered by the Respondent-Union of India.
Sahib Ram vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 19 September, 1994
The same view
Patna High Court CWJC No.20503 of 2021 dt.18-09-2024
26/32
was taken in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported
in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18.
Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 17 August, 2012
In our view, the law laid down in
Chandi Prasad Uniyal case [(2012) 8 SCC
417 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 450] , no way
conflicts with the observations made by this
Court in the other two cases. In those decisions,
directions were issued in exercise of the powers
of this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution, but in the subsequent decision this
Patna High Court CWJC No.20503 of 2021 dt.18-09-2024
27/32
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, in
laying down the law had dismissed the petition
of the employee. This Court in a number of
cases had battled with tracing the contours of
the provision in Articles 136 and 142 of the
Constitution of India. Distinctively, although
the words employed under the two aforesaid
provisions speak of the powers of this Court, the
former vest a plenary jurisdiction in the
Supreme Court in the matter of entertaining and
hearing of appeals by granting special leave
against any judgment or order made by a court
or tribunal in any cause or matter. The powers
are plenary to the extent that they are
paramount to the limitations under the specific
provisions for appeal contained in the
Constitution or other laws. Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, on the other hand is a
step ahead of the powers envisaged under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It is the
exercise of jurisdiction to pass such enforceable
decree or order as is necessary for doing
"complete justice" in any cause or matter.
Prem Chand Garg vs Excise Commissioner, U. P., Allahabad on 6 November, 1962
9. The word "complete justice" was
fraught with uncertainty until Article 142 of the
Constitution received its first interpretation in
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr. [AIR 1963
SC 996] which added a rider to the exercise of
wide extraordinary powers by laying down that
though the powers are wide, the same is an
Patna High Court CWJC No.20503 of 2021 dt.18-09-2024
28/32
ancillary power and can be used when not
expressly in conflict with the substantive
provisions of law.
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 March, 1966
This view was endorsed by a
nine-Judge Bench in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar
v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1967 SC 1 :
A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 29 April, 1988
(1966) 3 SCR 744] reiterated by a seven-Judge
Bench in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1988) 2
SCC 602 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 372] and finally
settled in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of
India [(1998) 4 SCC 409]
Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 April, 1998
(1966) 3 SCR 744] reiterated by a seven-Judge
Bench in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1988) 2
SCC 602 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 372] and finally
settled in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of
India [(1998) 4 SCC 409]