CLOSE
18 November 2021 | Magma Leasing Ltd. v. Badri Vishal | Writ (C) No. 16753 of 2010 | Yogendra Kumar Srivastava J | Allahabad High Court | 2021 SCC OnLine All 806
The Allahabad High Court has applied the law that a writ of certiorari against an order of the civil court does not lie in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, it dismissed a challenge against an order made in enforcement proceedings under Section 36 ACA. Earlier, the petitioner’s enforcement petition was dismissed due to non-appearance. The application for restoration was also rejected as time barred. It then filed a writ petition under Article 226.
The law applied in the case was laid in the 9-judge bench decision in Naresh Shridhar
Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966) 3 SCR 744 and followed in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015) 5 SCC 423. See more discussion here.
The court ,however, noted that a petition under Article 227 would lie. The reader would note that, though the provisions quite differ in their scope and application, it is a practice in several High Courts to style a writ petition under both Articles 226 and 227.
Read the judgment here.
Categories: Article 226 Constitution of India | Article 227 Constitution of India | Bhaven Construction | Certiorari | Deep Industries | Enforcement | Extent of Judicial Intervention | Judicial Review | Mirajkar | Patent Lack of Inherent Jurisdiction | Power of Superintendence Over All Courts by the High Court | Section 36 ACA | Section 5 ACA | Self Contained Code | Special Act v General Act