Skip to main content

Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Courts explained - Allahabad HC

While discussing the scope of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, the Court said that this power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority . Stating that the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow, it was held that it does not vest the High Court with unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes and that it must be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. The Court was of the opinion that the independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions. Moreover, the power under Article 227 of the Constitution is not in the nature of power of appellate authority enabling re-appreciation of evidence. It should not alter the conclusion reached by the Competent Statutory Authority merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence .Therefore, it cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by Courts below unless there is no evidence to support findings or the findings are totally perverse.  [ Shiv Kumar Chaudhary v Sarswati Devi, WRIT - A No. - 23977 of 2014, decided on April 30th  2014]

Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2014/06/19/scope-of-supervisory-jurisdiction-of-high-courts-explained.aspx

Comments

Most viewed this month

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...