IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, while deciding the Writ Petition No. 3296 of 2009, on 07/09/09, in re: SAMRUDDHI INDUSTRIES vs CESTAT, MUMBAI, it was observed as follows:
QUOTE: Making any observation on these issues in the present writ petition arising out of an order refusing complete waiver would amount to pre-empting the discussion and decision which may be appropriately required to be taken by the appellate Tribunal. Should this Court express a view which Tribunal may eventually find untenable, it would have to virtually overrule a judgement of a constitutional Court, which may be embarassing. Hence, apart from the fact that the Tribunal is not shown to have passed a perverse or untenable order, it is not shown that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, in order to justify invocation of superintendence jurisdiction or power to issue a Writ of Certiorari. The petition is therefore dismissed. UNQUOTE.
[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_hc_bom_wp_3296]
HIGH COURT ORDERS
VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, PERVERSE OR UNTENABLE ORDER, SUPERINTENDENCE JURISDICTION, WRIT OF CERTIORARI
The High Court of Delhi, while deciding the W.P. © No. 14869 of 2004, on 13/02/2009, in re : UAE EXCHANGE CENTRE LTD vs U.O.I. observed as follows : -
QUOTE : We would like to touch upon the well engrafted principles, with respect to, the exercise of writ jurisdiction by Courts, in such like matters. Essentially, when superior courts exercise the power of judicial review in respect of orders, deisions or, as in the instant case, a ruling of administrative quasi-judicial authority or a judicial authority, it looks at the decision making process and not at the decision itself. A superior court is not expected to substitute its view with that of the authority whose decision is impugned before it as long as the view taken by the authority, is a plausible view which is free from errors of jurisdiction or errors apparent on the face of the record. The statement of law on this aspect of the matter, in respect of a quasi-judicial authority, has been very aptly enunciated in the judgement of seven Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of UJJAN BAI vs. STATE OF U.P. [AIR 1962 SC 1621 at page 1629 (para 15) reads as follows : -
“where a quasi judicial authority has jurisdiction to decide a matter, it does not lose its jurisdiction by coming to a wrong conclusion, whether it is wrong in law or in fact.”
It is now fairly well settled that superior courts can issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI where there is an error of law which is apparent on the face of record as these are akin to errors of jurisdiction as against mere errors of law. The statement of law in HALSBURYS LAWS OF ENGLAND (4th Edition. Vol.1 ( 1) Para 73 Page 127) best captures the accepted position in law. UNQUOTE
[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_hc_del_wpc_14869]
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT
VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS
errors apparent, judicial review, writ, writ jurisdiction, WRIT OF CERTIORARI
