Back
VIPIN SANGHI
Shamshad Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner to assail the judgment and order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the District Judge, Dehradun in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2022 preferred by the respondent-State Infrastructure and Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the said Appeal has been allowed, and the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the Application moved by the respondent under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC was set aside.
3. The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is clearly not maintainable. The endeavour of the petitioner is to assail the impugned judgment and order before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, merely because there is no statutory right of appeal available to the petitioner to assail the impugned judgment and order before this Court.
4. The law is well settled with regard to the scope of jurisdiction which a High Court exercises under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its powers of superintendence under Article 227
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that the High Court cannot act as a ....
The court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Article 227 and the need for supervisory correction in exercising jurisdiction.
The power of superintendence of the High Court over subordinate courts is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authorities....
The High Court under Article 227 does not reconsider factual errors of inferior courts unless findings are perverse or unjust, maintaining supervisory authority without delving into case merits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the petition under the Arbitration Act, IAAP No. 106 of 2016, is restored in view of the decision o....
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
