Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1980 (1.83 seconds)
Documents citing Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra & Anr on 10 April, 2002

M/S. Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe ... vs The Assam State Electricity Board on 26 February, 2024

There appears to be no decision directly on this point and we had requested Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Advocate to assist us as an Amicus Curiae in this matter, a request he graciously accepted. Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli has appeared on behalf of the appellants and we have already recorded his main submissions. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has drawn our attention to the Order XLVIII of the 2013 Rules to point out that since this was a case where review petition was dismissed in open Court hearing after oral submissions were advanced, it does not satisfy the mandate of the five Judge Bench laid down in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra (supra). Mr. Hansaria 12 has also taken the point of delay in filing the curative petition. The review petition was dismissed on 18.12.2019 and the curative petition was filed on 31.10.2020, after a lapse of ten months. He has taken us through the provisions of Rule 3 of Order XLVIII of the 2013 Rules which requires a curative petition to be filed within a reasonable time from the date of judgment or order passed in the review petition. But the Rules do not provide any specific time period within which a curative petition has to be filed from the date of dismissal of the review petition. Thus, it ought to be left to the discretion of the Court while entertaining such petition to decide the question of delay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Bose - Full Document

Meeraj Estate & Developers, Agra vs Assessee on 22 July, 2013

A decision can be set aside in the same lis on a prayer for review or an application for recall or under Art. 32 in the peculiar circumstances mentioned in Hurra vs. Hurra (supra). As we have said overruling of a decision takes place in a subsequent lis where the precedential value of the decision is called in question. No one can dispute that in our judicial system it is open to a Court of superior jurisdiction or strength before which a decision of a Bench of lower strength is cited as an authority, to overrule it. This overruling would not operate to upset the binding nature of the decision on the parties to an earlier lis in that lis, for whom the principle of res judicata would continue to operate. But in tax cases relating to a subsequent year involving the same issue as an earlier year, the Court can differ from the view expressed if the case is distinguishable or per incuriam.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 96 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Marketyard Commercial Co-Op Bank Ltd vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 13 February, 2014

22. A decision can be set aside in the same lis on a prayer  for review or an application for recall or under Article 32 in  the peculiar circumstances mentioned in Hurra v. Hurra. As  we   have   said,   overruling   of   a   decision   takes   place   in   a  subsequent lis where the precedential value of the decision is  called   in   question. No  one  can  dispute  that  in  our  judicial  system   it   is   open   to   a   Court   of   superior   jurisdiction   or  strength before which a decision of a Bench of lower strength  Page 11 of 42 C/LPA/1716/2005 JUDGMENT is cited as an authority, to overrule it. This overruling would  not operate to upset the binding nature of the decision on the  parties to an earlier lis in that lis, for whom the principle of  res   judicata   would   continue   to   operate.   But   in   tax   cases  relating to a subsequent year involving the same issue as an  earlier year, the court can differ from the view expressed if  the case is distinguishable or per incuriam.
Gujarat High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 March, 2006

A decision can be set aside in the same lis on a prayer for review or an application for recall or Under Art. 32 in the peculiar circumstances mentioned in Hurra vs. Hurra. As we have said overruling of a decision takes place in a subsequent lis where the precedential value of the decision is called in question. No one can dispute that in our judicial system it is open to a Court of superior jurisdiction or strength before which a decision of a Bench of lower strength is cited as an authority, to overrule it. This overruling would not operate to upset the binding nature of the decision on the parties to an earlier lis in that lis, for whom the principle of res judicata would continue to operate. But in tax cases relating to a subsequent year involving the same issue as an earlier year, the court can differ from the view expressed if the case is distinguishable or per incuriam.
Supreme Court of India Cites 70 - Cited by 340 - R Pal - Full Document

Vasanta Sampat Dupare vs Union Of India on 25 August, 2025

57. As for the argument of the learned Advocate General for the State of Maharashtra that after 48 (2001) 7 SCC 126 49 (2019) 1 SCC 1 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 371 OF 2023 Page 75 of 79 dismissal of a review petition, the only available path is that of the curative petition, the same is difficult to accept for the Constitution Bench in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra50 itself states that this jurisdiction is to be exercised only in those cases where the circumstances permit the finality of a judicial decision to be altered with. Para 42 reads as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - V Nath - Full Document

Kashibhai Ishwarbhai Patel & 2 vs Special Land Acquisition Officer & 2 on 12 August, 2016

In   the   present   case,   the   curative  petition   was   dismissed   on   the   ground   that   it  does   not   satisfy   the   test   laid   down   in  Rupa   Ashok   Hurra   v.   Ashok   Hurra   &   Anr.   (supra),   which provides that for a curative petition to  be maintainable, the grounds raised in it must  have   been   raised   in   the   review   petition.   The  curative   petition   was,   therefore   dismissed   as  not   being   maintainable.   There   is   no   bar   in  agitating   the   plea   for   recall   of   the   judgment  dated   03.10.2006   before   this   Court   and   for  rehearing   the   First   Appeal,   taking   into  consideration   the   fact   that   the   document  regarding Circle Rates was suppressed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - A Kumari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next