Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Dilip Nath Sen vs Certificate Officer And Ors. on 13 June, 1961

Income-Tax Officer vs Shamsher Bahadur. on 11 November, 1963

The Calcutta case in Dilip Nath Sen v. Certificate Officer after noticing the conflict between the Madhya Pradesh High Court on the one hand and the Bombay and Madras High Court on the other, followed the latter view and held that in a proper case an application for review would lie from an order passeed in proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution. This conflict has been noticed in Basus Constitution of India, IV edition, volume III and the following observations appear at page 398 :
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Wadilal Chunilal vs Murlidhar Girdharlal Shah on 5 February, 1970

3. Two preliminary objections have been taken by Mr. Bhabha to the maintainability of the present review petition. The first of those objections is that this petition is barred under Article 124 of the Limitation Act, 1968, which requires that it should be filed within 30 days of the date of the order sought to be reviewed. It may be mentioned that the present petition having been filed on December 12, 1969, over eight months after my Order dated March 20, 1969 which is sought to be reviewed is clearly out of time and the petitioner has, therefore, prayed for condonation of the delay in filing the same under Article 5 of the Limitation Act. The second preliminary objection of Mr. Bhabha is that no ground for review has been made out in the present petition, as the fact that an authority which is relevant on the point was not cited is no ground for review as held in Dilip Nath v. Certificate Officer . I do not think it. necessary to decide either of the two preliminary objections raised by Mr. Bhabha to the maintainability of this review petition nor do I propose to consider the question as to whether, as far as his first objection is concerned, the delay in filing this review petition should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, because what I propose to do is to exercise the inherent powers of the Court. I have an inherent right to clarify my own Order made in Chambers, once the matter comes to my notice and I take the view that, in the light of the legal position now pointed out to me, and in view of what has happened before the Commissioner, the said Order needs clarification.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chandrakant Jagannath Manjrekar And ... vs Shripad Vaikunth Naik on 20 January, 1988

In the decision of Dilip Nath Sen v. Certificate Officer while construing the provision of O. 47, R. 1 of C.P.C. the words "any other sufficient reason" appearing therein it is observed that a production of an authority or ruling not brought to the notice of the court at the time of the decision was rendered is not a sufficient reason. He therefore now urges that mere discovery of these two decisions now cannot permit the court to review its own judgment and the review application must fail.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Sibpur Hindu Girls' High School And Ors. vs Sujit Kumar Banerjee And Ors. on 6 March, 2006

8. Appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, Mr. Indranath Mukherjee has challenged the maintainability of the Review Petition. It is contended that the Division Bench passed the final order after considering all the aspects of the case. There being no apparent mistake or error on face of record, it would be beyond the scope of review. Mr. Indranath Mukherjee has cited the case of Dilip Nath Sen v. Certificate Officer and Ors. reported in AIR 1962 Calcutta 346, in support of his contention that the parties are to come prepared with all their materials at the first hearing and if. they do not come properly prepared, they ought not to be allowed to renew the matter on discovering some facts which they had omitted to bring forward earlier. They let the opportunity lie abegging. Nobody prevented the petitioners from citing the decisions at the appropriate stage of hearing. The opportunities not being availed of, they cannot be allowed to retrieve their position by citing the new decisions under the cover of a review petition. Referring to the provision of Section 114 and Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC, Mr. Mukherjee has argued that the principles of review as underlying in the Code will have no. application in the wit petition. The scope and ambit the Writ Court and Civil Court being altogether different, the same principles of review as contained in the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be applied in writ proceeding.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - P K Deb - Full Document

Jai Balaji Industries Ltd vs Wellman Logistics Pvt. Ltd on 4 August, 2016

On the other hand, Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that no grounds had been made out by the company for review of the order dated 7th September, 2015. Mr. Mukherjee argued that merely because a decision might be erroneous in law, the same cannot be a ground for review of such decision. There must be an error apparent on the face of the record that the review would be maintainable. Reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75 and to the judgment of this Court in Dilip Nath Sen Vs. Certificate Officer & Ors., reported in AIR 1962 Cal 346. Mr. Mukherjee argued that 7 the grounds on which an order might be reviewed are limited. The onus is on the company to show an apparent error.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - I Banerjee - Full Document
1