http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 7038 of 2002

PETITIONER:

M/s Essen Deinki

RESPONDENT:

Rajiv Kumar

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/10/2002

BENCH:

Umesh C. Banerjee & Y.K. Sabharwal.

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

BANERJEE, J.

Leave granted.

Generally speaking, exercise of jurisdiction under Article

227 of the Constitution is limited and restrictive in nature. It is

so exercised in the normal circumstances for want of jurisdiction,

errors of law, perverse findings and gross violation of natural

justice, to name a few. It is merely a revisional jurisdiction and

does not confer an unlimited authority or prerogative to correct all

orders or even wrong decisions made within the limits of the

jurisdiction of the Courts below. The finding of fact being within

the domain of the inferior Tribunal, except where it is a perverse

recording thereof or not based on any material whatsoever

resulting in manifest injustice, interference under the Article is not

called for:

The observations above however, find affirmance in the

decision of this Court in Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath

Ghughu (AIR 1963 SC 1895). In Nibaran (supra) this Court has

bee