ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BIKAU PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist in support of this revision.

(2.) THE Stamp Reporter has submitted a report that this revision is not maintainable. Sri Srivastava has stated that in view of the decision in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Bhilai v. Ramdas Rao Ji Patil and others, 2000 (2) TAC 455 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others, 2003 (1) AWC 23 (SC) : 2003 (1) SCCD 103 : JT 2003 (7) SC 251, that the revision is maintainable. Sri Srivastava cited the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges reported in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Company Limited and another, 2003 (2) SCCD 892 : 2003 (2) TAC 26 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt precisely with the same argument as is being advanced by Shri Srivastava and held that : "THE supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is confined only to see whether an inferior Court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as in appellate court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision."

(3.) IN this view of the matter, this revision is dismissed having no force.