Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1073 (1.33 seconds)
Documents citing Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury on 16 November, 1994

Smt. Anitha T vs Chief Executive Officer on 10 June, 2024

8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170] while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389] this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1CPC.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Mohan K vs Chief Executive Officer on 10 June, 2024

8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170] while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389] this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1CPC.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Sudipta Ghosh on 5 October, 2023

Relying upon the judgments in Aribam [Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389] and Meera Bhanja [Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170] it was observed as under : (SCC p. 719, para 9) '9. Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident self evident and has to be detected b by y a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition, it must 7.2.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - S B Saraf - Full Document

A.C. Muthiah vs Madras Refineries Ltd., Represented By ... on 11 August, 1997

2. My learned brother has set out in paragraph - 19 the conclusions arrived at by the Division Bench in O.S.Appeals and the reasons for the grant of interim injunction in favour of the respondents. My learned brother after quoting the decisions in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudury, wherein the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, , Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1963 SC 1909 and S.L. Hegde v. M.B.Tirumale, were considered, has held that the review proceedings cannot be considered as an appeal on the judgment of the same Bench and this Court in review proceedings cannot act as a Court of appeal.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

State Bank Of Travancore vs Prem Singh on 18 October, 2023

Relying upon the judgments in Aribam [Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389] and Meera Bhanja [Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170] it was observed as under : (SCC p. 719, para 9) „9. Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be „reheard and corrected‟. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be „an appeal in disguise‟.‟ "
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next