Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: constitution of india article 139 conferment on the supreme court of powers to issue certain writs Page 1 of about 18,145 results (0.265 seconds)

Rajendra Diwan Vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... under article 145, the supreme court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. 7 138: enlargement of the jurisdiction of the supreme court.- (1) the supreme court shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any of the matters in the union list as parliament may by law confer. (2) the supreme court shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any matter as the government of india and the government of any state may by special agreement confer, if parliament by law provides for the exercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the supreme court. 139: conferment on the supreme court of powers to issue certain writs.- parliament may by law confer on the supreme court power to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the ..... rent control act does not confer on the supreme court, jurisdiction it did not already possess, but is only incidental to and/or extension of its power under article 136, is not sustainable in law.57. under article 136 of the constitution, the supreme court does not act as a regular court of appeal. the power of the supreme court under article 136 is not to be confused with the appellate power ordinarily exercised by appellate courts and tribunals under specific statutes.58. article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on any party, but confers a discretionary power on the supreme court to interfere in appropriate cases. this power can be exercised in spite of other provisions for .....

State Bank of India Vs. Santosh Gupta and Anr. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... constitution sets up the district courts and the high court in the state, yet, the supreme authority of courts to interpret the constitution of india and to invalidate action violative of the constitution is found to be fully present. appeals from the high court of jammu & kashmir lie to the supreme court of india, and shorn of a few minor modifications, articles 124 to 147 all apply to the state of jammu & kashmir, with articles 135 and 139 being omitted. the effect of omitting articles 135 and 139 has a very small impact, in that article 135 only deals with jurisdiction and powers of the federal court to be exercised by the supreme court, and article 139 deals with parliament s power to confer on the supreme court the power to issue directions, orders, and writs for purposes other than those mentioned in article ..... differences. it is therefore difficult to accept the argument of shri hansaria that the constitution of india and that of jammu & kashmir have equal status. article 1 of the constitution of india and section 3 of the jammu & kashmir constitution make it clear that india shall be a union of states, and that the state of jammu & kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the union of india.11. it is interesting to note that the state of jammu & kashmir, though a state within the meaning of article 1 of the constitution of india, has been accorded a special status from the very beginning because of certain events that took place at the time that the erstwhile ruler .....

D. Parraju Vs. General Manager, B.N. Railway and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1952Cal610,56CWN264

..... powers of the high court to interfere under article 226(1) of the constitution. the constitution came into force on january 26, 1950. the provisions of the constitution relating to the issue of directions, orders or writs are set forth in arts. 32, 139 and 226. article 32(2) runs as follows:'the supreme court shall have power to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this part.'14. the part referred to is part iii of the constitution which deals with fundamental rights.article 226(1) of the constitution ..... by which the petitioner was appointed, the nature of the inquiry if any made in the present case, the denial of a right of appeal, the alleged imperfect nature of the enquiry and the alleged arbitrary conduct of certain officers of the railway administration. it is difficult in my opinion, to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on these matters on mere affidavits. in order to get at truth it is necessary that the ..... against the action proposed by the railway administration after the order was served on him. it was, accordingly, contended that the order of removal was void under article 311(2) of the constitution. reference was made to the case of 'high commissioners for india and pakistan v. i. m. lall', 75 ind app 225 (pc), in support of the proposition that before a civil servant could be removed .....

Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and o ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2004SC2351; 2004(3)BLJR1908; (2004)4CompLJ171(SC); JT2004(Suppl1)SC160; 2004(4)SCALE724; (2004)5SCC1; (2004)3UPLBEC2331

..... article 139-a, the supreme court may transfer any case pending before one high court to another high court or may withdraw the case to itself. under article 141 the law declared by the supreme court shall be binding on all courts, including high courts, within the territory of india. under article 144 all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of india -- and that would include high court as well -- shall act in aid of the supreme court.9. in a unified hierarchical judicial system which india has accepted under its constitution, vertically the supreme court is placed over the high courts. the very fact that the constitution confers an appellate power on the supreme court over the high courts, certain ..... exploring into finding out what is the relationship of supreme court with high courts as two august judicial institutions functioning under the constitution.8. under the constitutional scheme as framed for the judiciary, the supreme court and the high courts both are courts of record. the high court is not a court 'subordinate' to the supreme court. in a way the canvass of judicial powers vesting in the high court is wider inasmuch as it has jurisdiction to issue all prerogative writs conferred by article 226 of the constitution for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part iii of the constitution and for any other purpose while the original jurisdiction of supreme court to issue prerogative writs remains confined to the enforcement of fundamental rights .....

State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. Vs. Mukhtar Singh and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1957All505

..... general jurisdiction. this view would find support from the judgment of their lordships of the supreme court in the case romesh thappar v. state of madras : 1950crilj1514 . in this case while referring to article 32 of the constitution patanjali sastri, j. made the following significant observations:'the article does not merely confer power on this court, as article 226 does on the high courts, to issue certain writs for the enforcement of the rights conferred by part iii, or for any other purposes, as part of its general jurisdiction, in that case, it would have been more appropriately placed among arts. 131 to 139 which define that jurisdiction', (p. 126).36. reference in this connection might ..... to determine the nature of the proceeding in a petition for a writ of certiorari. article 226 confers power upon all high courts to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and 'for any other purpose'. prior to the constitution this court had no power to issue a writ for any purpose; its jurisdiction was governed by section 223 of the government of india act, 1935.under clause 11 of the letters patent this court was constituted a court of appeal from the civil courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction in such cases as were subject to appeal to the high court by virtue of any laws in force, under clause 20 it was constituted a court of appeal from the criminal courts, under clause 25 it had .....

Kesavan Sivan Pillai Vs. Sreedharan Rajamohan and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1978Ker131; 1978CriLJ743

..... and state courts should be exhausted before the remedy in the supreme court -- be it habeas corpus or certiorari -- would be allowed. we are of opinion that neither the instances mentioned by the learned advocate-general nor the american decisions referred to by him are really analogous to the remedy afforded by article 32 of the indian constitution. that article does not merely confer power on this court, as article 226 does on the high courts, to issue certain writs for the enforcement of the rights conferred by part iii, or for any other purpose, as part of its general jurisdiction, in that case it would have been more appropriately placed among articles 131 to 139 which define that jurisdiction. article 32 ..... and bar a petition for similar relief under article 32 of the constitution. the principle was affirmed in trilokchand motichand v. h. b. munshi, commr. of sales-tax, bombay (air 1970 sc 898) and arati hay choudhury v. union of india (air 1974 sc 532). but with these principles thrown in, on the terms of the statutory provisions, would we be justified in insisting even as a rule of salutary practice that the party should approach the sessions judge first before moving the high court? in the face of the bar provided by clause .....

Sheoshankar Vs. State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1951CriLJ1140

..... the instances mentioned by the learned advocate general nor the american decisions referred to by him are really analogous to the remedy afforded by article 32 of the indian constitution. that article does not merely confer power on this court, as article 226 does on the high courts, to issue certain writs for the enforcement of the rights conferred fly part iii, or for any other purpose, as part of its general jurisdiction. in that case it would have been more appropriately placed among articles 131 to 139 which define that jurisdiction. article 32 provides a 'guaranteed' remedy for the enforcement of those rights, & this remedial right is itself made a fundamental right by being included ..... . the opening words of article 226 'notwithstanding anything in article 32' read with the second clause of that article thatthe power conferred on a high court by clause (1) shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the supreme court by clause (2) of article 32. show that the high court's powers are not postponed & that the high courts are excepted from the operation of the third clause of article 32.35. there is no force in the contention that we must make a distinction between 'jurisdiction' & 'power' & that article 226 is merely enabling & provides an additional arm to the high courts to be used in the exercise of their established jurisdictions. i am aware that opinion in india is not uniform .....

Vinod Dua Vs. Union Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... and state courts should be exhausted before the remedy in the supreme court - be it habeas corpus or certiorari - would be allowed. we are of opinion that neither the instances mentioned by the learned advocate-general nor the american decisions referred to by him are really analogous to the remedy afforded by article 32 of the indian constitution. that article does not merely confer power on this court, as article 226 does on the high court, to issue certain writs for the enforcement of the rights conferred by part iii or for any other purpose, as part of its general jurisdiction. in that case it would have been more appropriately placed among articles 131 to 139 which define that jurisdiction. article 32 ..... aimed to prevent incitement to murder.10. the words public order were also understood in america and england as offences against public safety or 51 (1952) scr654writ petition (criminal) no.154 of 2020 vinod dua vs. union of india & ors. 70 public peace. the supreme court of america observed in cantewell v. connecticut52 thus: the offence known as breach of the peace embraces a great variety of conduct destroying or menacing public order and tranquillity. it includes not only violent acts and words likely to produce .....

S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1982SC149; 1981Supp(1)SCC87; [1982]2SCR365

..... it subject to the law made by parliament which might otherwise provide. article 138 enables parliament to enlarge the jurisdiction of the supreme court in respect of certain matters. article 139 contemplates conferment on supreme court by a law of parliament all powers to issue writs for any purpose other than those mentioned in clause (2) of article 32. article 140 provides for parliamentary legislation even in regard to supplemental powers of the supreme court article 130 enables the chief justice of india with the approval of the president to provide for sitting of supreme court ..... to a number of articles in the constitution conferring power on other constitutional institutions such as the executive which when it acts within the limits of power will have a direct impact on the functioning of the judiciary. to briefly refer to some of these provisions, article 32(3) confers power on the parliament to frame a law, inter alia, empowering any other court to exercise within local limits of its jurisdiction any of the powers exercisable by the supreme court under article 32. article 133(3) confers power on the parliament to enact a law enlarging the jurisdiction of the supreme court. article 135 preserves the existing jurisdiction of the supreme court but makes .....

Smt. Ujjam Bai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : [1963]1SCR778; [1963]Supp2SCR778

..... confer on the supreme court by law, vide article 139), and secondly, that the right of moving the supreme court is itself a guaranteed right (article 32(1) and is unaffected by the powers of the high court (article 226(2)). 230. the foregoing is a resume of the interpretations places upon article 32, but there are other provisions of the constitution relating to the supreme court which must be viewed alongside, because the supreme court has other roles to perform under the constitution. those provisions give an indication of how the supreme court is intended to use its powers. 231. the supreme court is made, by articles 133 and 134, the final court of appeal over the high court in all civil and criminal matters, though the right of appeal arises only in certain ..... . it is clear, therefore, that so long as no order is made by the president to suspend the enforcement of the rights conferred by part iii of the constitution every person in india, citizen or otherwise, has the guaranteed right to move the supreme court for enforcement of the rights conferred on him by part iii of the constitution and the supreme court has the power to issue necessary directions, orders or writs which may be appropriate for the enforcement of such rights. indeed, this court has held in more than one decision that under the constitution it is the privilege and duty of this court to uphold the fundamental rights, whenever a person seeks the enforcement of such rights. the oath of office which .....