Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.47 seconds)M.V. Bijlani vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006
Leaned advocate
invited attention of the Court to para.6 of the judgment wherein the
Hon ble the Apex Court has quoted its earlier decision in the
matter of M.V.Bijlani v. Union of India and Ors., reported in AIR
2006 SC 3475. The observations of the Hon ble Apex Court are quoted
for ready reference.
Ishwar Chand Jain vs High Court Of Punjab & Haryana And ... on 26 May, 1988
(a)
In Ishwar Chand Jain v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana
& Anr, AIR 1988 SC
1395, it was held:
Nirmala J. Jhala vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 18 March, 2013
23. Learned
advocate for the petitioner submitted that in that very case of
Nirmala J. Jhala (Supra), the Hon ble the Apex Court has observed
about the parameters of the Court s power of judicial review of
administrative action or decision. The Hon ble the Apex Court has
clearly observed that, & an order can be set-aside if it is
based on extraneous grounds, or when there are no grounds at all for
passing it or when the grounds are such that, no one can reasonably
arrived at the opinion. & Learned advocate for the petitioner
submitted that it is true that the Court does not sit as a Court of
appeal but, if the aforesaid situation prevails, the Court has to
interfere with the order of punishment and do justice.
M.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998
20. Learned
advocate also invited attention of the Court to observations made by
the Hon ble the Apex Court while referring to its earlier decision
in the matter of M.S.Bindra v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1998 SC
3058 wherein the Hon ble the Apex Court held as under.
Yoginath D. Bagde vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 16 September, 1999
(b)
In Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra & Anr, AIR 1999 SC
3734, it was held:
L.D. Jaikwal vs State Of U.P on 17 May, 1984
(c) A subordinate judicial officer
works mostly in a charged atmosphere. He is under a psychological
pressure contestants and lawyers breathing down his neck. If the
fact that he renders a decision which is resented by a litigant or
his lawyer were to expose him to such risk, it will sound the death
knell of the institution. Judge bashing has become a favourite
pastime of some people. There is growing tendency of maligning the
reputation of judicial officers by disgruntled elements who fail to
secure an order which they desire. For functioning of democracy, an
independent judiciary, to dispense justice without fear and favour is
paramount. Judiciary should not be reduced to the position of flies
in the hands of wanton boys. (Vide :L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P, AIR
1984 SC 1374; K.P. Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC
1031; Haridas Das v. Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors., etc. AIR 2007
SC 2688; and In Re : Ajay Kumar Pandey, AIR 1998 SC 3299)
P.C. Joshi vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 8 August, 2001
Learned
advocate for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon ble
the Apex Court in the matter of P.C.Joshi
v. State of U.P. & Others,
reported in JT
2001 (6) SC 239
wherein the Hon ble the
Apex Court had occasion to observe in Para.7,9 and 10 as under :
Haridas Das vs Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors on 16 July, 2007
(c) A subordinate judicial officer
works mostly in a charged atmosphere. He is under a psychological
pressure contestants and lawyers breathing down his neck. If the
fact that he renders a decision which is resented by a litigant or
his lawyer were to expose him to such risk, it will sound the death
knell of the institution. Judge bashing has become a favourite
pastime of some people. There is growing tendency of maligning the
reputation of judicial officers by disgruntled elements who fail to
secure an order which they desire. For functioning of democracy, an
independent judiciary, to dispense justice without fear and favour is
paramount. Judiciary should not be reduced to the position of flies
in the hands of wanton boys. (Vide :L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P, AIR
1984 SC 1374; K.P. Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC
1031; Haridas Das v. Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors., etc. AIR 2007
SC 2688; and In Re : Ajay Kumar Pandey, AIR 1998 SC 3299)
State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs S. Subramaniam on 24 January, 1996
(I) It is settled legal proposition
that judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by
re-appreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority. The only
consideration the Court/Tribunal has in its judicial review, is to
consider whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and
supports the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no
evidence. The adequacy or reliability of the evidence is not a matter
which can be permitted to be canvassed before the Court in writ
proceedings. (Vide: State of T.N. & Anr v. S. Subramaniam, AIR
1996 SC 1232; R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab, (1999) 8 SCC 90; and
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, AIR
2006 SC 1214)