9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of whether a writ petition should be treated under article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Application of the principles of certiorari in judicial review. 3. Examination of the grounds for granting a writ of certiorari to correct decisions by BIFR and AAIFR. 4. Determination of jurisdiction under article 227 for issues arising from impugned orders. 5. Assessment of factual findings by BIFR and AAIFR in the context of writ jurisdiction. Analysis: 1. The judgment delves into the interpretation of whether a writ petition should be treated under article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The appellant argued that the writ petition should have been treated under article 226 based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Mangalbhai v. Dr. Radhyshyam, emphasizing the party's right to appeal. The court highlighted the importance of fairness and justice in such cases to avoid depriving parties of their valuable right of appeal. 2. The judgment extensively discusses the application of certiorari in judicial review, drawing upon the historical origins of prerogative writs from English law. It elucidates the power of superior courts to issue orders or writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition, and certiorari for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The court emphasized the broad and fundamental principles guiding the exercise of jurisdiction in granting such writs in Indian law. 3. The court analyzed the grounds for granting a writ of certiorari to correct decisions made by BIFR and AAIFR. The appellant contended that the facts of the case warranted the granting of a writ of certiorari to rectify the decisions, citing discrepancies in financial accounts and misleading actions by the promoters. However, the court noted that the judgments of BIFR and AAIFR were based on factual assessments and documents filed by the parties, including balance sheets, which formed the basis for the decisions. 4. In determining the jurisdiction under article 227 for issues arising from impugned orders, the court clarified that its role was not that of a second appellate court over the order of the First Appellate Court (AAIFR). The court's jurisdiction under article 227 was limited to jurisdictional issues arising from the impugned orders, and it could not delve into factual matters beyond that scope. 5. The judgment scrutinized the factual findings by BIFR and AAIFR in the context of writ jurisdiction. The court emphasized that it could not ignore or set aside the findings arrived at by these authorities based on the appreciation of facts and documents submitted by the parties. The court underscored the importance of examining the entire factual scenario to determine the substance of the submissions made, emphasizing that each case must be evaluated based on its unique facts. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition without admission based on these considerations.
|
