Back
ARAVIND KUMAR, N. V. ANJARIA
Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to administrative notification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments against the legality of kolhapur's designation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. defense of the notification by respondents. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. court's analysis of statutory provisions. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 5. limits of judicial review in administrative decisions. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 6. implications of articles 14 and 21 on access to justice. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 7. confirmation of the legality of the administrative notification. (Para 53) |
| 8. final conclusion of dismissal. (Para 57) |
JUDGMENT :
I. INTRODUCTION
2. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, established in 1862, has historically exercised jurisdiction over an extensive and geographically diverse region. Following the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and the reorganisation of States in 1960, the statute provided a framework enabling High Courts to hold sittings away from the principal seat where considerations of convenience and effective administration so warranted. In that backdrop, the
The Chief Justice of a High Court has the independent power under Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 to designate additional places for judicial sittings, enhancing access to justic....
The territorial jurisdiction for hearing writ petitions under Article 227 is determined by the location of the original authority, not the appellate authority, as mandated by administrative rules.
A judge must operate within their assigned jurisdiction; any order made outside this scope is void.
The judgment emphasized the need for clarifying the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226(2) in relation to challenges against orders passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench,....
![Tari Hai VS Gauhati High Court [Principal Seat], represented by the Registrar General - 2023 Supreme(Gau) 1213](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Gauhati_3.png)
The Chief Justice possesses broad discretionary powers to transfer cases between judicial benches, and such decisions do not undermine the integrity of any individual bench.
Power of judicial review of an order transferring an Original Application pending before a Bench of Tribunal to another Bench under Section 25 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 can be judicially ....
Principal Seat retains jurisdiction over writ challenging appellate tribunal order within its territory despite origin in Circuit Bench district; no ouster or mandatory transfer under Rule 3A as appe....
The High Court's appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) does not grant it jurisdiction over objections to the arbitral award under Section 34; objections must be heard in the proper princip....
The jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 227 pertains only to the Debts Recovery Tribunal located within its territorial limits, not an appellate tribunal for matters originating outside its ju....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
