Bombay High Court
Security Printing And Minting ... vs The Workent Through The General ... on 9 April, 2019
Author: M.S.Karnik
Bench: M.S.Karnik
28. rpwst 26592.15.doc
Urmila Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 26592 OF 2015
Security Printing and Minting Corporation
of India Ltd. and ors. .. Petitioners
Vs.
The Workmen through the General
Secretary & Ors. .. Respondents
Ms. Tanmai Gadre - Rajadhyaksha a/w Mr.Upendra
Lokegaonkar, for the Petitioner.
Mr.Rahul Walia, for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.
DATE : 09th APRIL, 2019 P.C. :
. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta and anr. (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 612, more particularly paragraph 22 which reads thus :
22. The term "mistake or error apparent" by its very connotation 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2019 01:58:31 :::
28. rpwst 26592.15.doc signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while excising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision."
3. I have gone through the order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to re-agitate the issue. I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant any interference in exercise of review jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Review is rejected.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) 2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2019 01:58:31 :::