Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1551 (1.55 seconds)
Documents citing Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos And ... vs The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius And ... on 21 May, 1954

Review vs Bysani Satish And Others on 28 November, 2025

54. Consequently, We are of the view that the judgment in appeal, under review, suffers from apparent error of law on the grounds/submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the review petitioner, in paragraph 13(3), 40 RNT, J & MRK, J Rev. IA.1/2022 in AS. No.59 of 2020 (4) and (5) (supra) and in view of the law laid down in the judgments, referred to above, inter alia and in particular Hari Vishnu Kamath (supra), Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos (supra), Rajender Singh (supra) and S. Nagaraj (supra).
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Review vs Bysani Satish And Others on 28 November, 2025

54. Consequently, We are of the view that the judgment in appeal, under review, suffers from apparent error of law on the grounds/submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the review petitioner, in paragraph 13(3), 40 RNT, J & MRK, J Rev. IA.1/2022 in AS. No.59 of 2020 (4) and (5) (supra) and in view of the law laid down in the judgments, referred to above, inter alia and in particular Hari Vishnu Kamath (supra), Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos (supra), Rajender Singh (supra) and S. Nagaraj (supra).
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shobha Nath Ram & Anr vs Satnam on 23 July, 2025

66. Recently, in S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy [S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, (2022) 17 SCC 255: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034], a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges has accepted the meaning of the ground "for any other sufficient reason" as explained in Chhajju Ram [Chhajju Ram v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11: AIR 1922 PC 112], Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos [Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius, (1954) 2 SCC 42: AIR 1954 SC 526] and Kamlesh Verma [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Kartar Singh, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1525].
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gyanesh Shukla vs Chancellor University Of Lucknow on 18 January, 2023

31. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as "for any other sufficient reason". The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule" (Refer : Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram17 and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius18)."
Allahabad High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document

Surat Ram vs Sudama Ram (Decease Through Lrs) And Ors on 3 January, 2025

66. Recently, in S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy [S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, (2022) 17 SCC 255: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034], a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges has accepted the meaning of the ground "for any other sufficient reason" as explained in Chhajju 11 ( 2025:HHC:574 ) Ram [Chhajju Ram v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11: AIR 1922 PC 112], Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos [Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius, (1954) 2 SCC 42: AIR 1954 SC 526] and Kamlesh Verma [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Kartar Singh, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1525].
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Reserved On: 28.3.2024 vs State Of H.P. And Another on 24 April, 2025

66. Recently, in S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy [S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, (2022) 17 SCC 255: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034], a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges has accepted the meaning of the ground "for any other sufficient reason" as explained in Chhajju Ram [Chhajju Ram v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11: AIR 1922 PC 112], Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos [Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius, (1954) 2 SCC 42: AIR 1954 SC 526] and Kamlesh Verma [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Kartar Singh, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1525].
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Reserved On: 03.01.2025 vs Raj Kanwar And Others on 10 January, 2025

66. Recently, in S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy [S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, (2022) 17 SCC 255: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034], a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges has accepted the meaning of the ground "for any other sufficient reason" as explained in Chhajju Ram [Chhajju Ram v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11: AIR 1922 PC 112], Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos [Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius, (1954) 2 SCC 42: AIR 1954 SC 526] and Kamlesh Verma [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Kartar Singh, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1525].
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bainsu (Since Deceased) Through Lrs vs Budhia And Anr on 3 January, 2025

66. Recently, in S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy [S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, (2022) 17 SCC 255: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034], a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges has accepted the meaning of the ground "for any other sufficient reason" as explained in Chhajju Ram [Chhajju Ram v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11: AIR 1922 PC 112], Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos [Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius, (1954) 2 SCC 42: AIR 1954 SC 526] and Kamlesh Verma [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Kartar Singh, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1525].
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next