Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 150 (3.01 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab vs Darshan Singh on 29 October, 2003

Srihari (Dead) Through Lr. Smt. Ch. ... vs Syed Maqdoom Shah & Ors on 16 September, 2014

12. From the language of Section 152 of the Code, as quoted above, and also from the interpretation of the section given in the case of State of Punjab vs. Darshan Singh (supra), the section is meant for correcting the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. It is true that the powers under Section 152 of the Code are neither to be equated with the power of review nor can be said to be akin to review or even said to clothe the Court under guise of invoking after the result of the judgment earlier rendered. The corrections contemplated under the section are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - P C Pant - Full Document

Shri Rajan Suri And Anr. vs The State And Anr. on 2 December, 2005

36. It cannot be ignored that the petitioners in their wisdom did file an application for recall of the preliminary decree fled in a civil suit on the basis of the discovery of the present Will in question. This was not an application merely under the provisions of Sections 151, 152 of the Code but an application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code which makes it clear that the principles of State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh case (supra) would not apply. The petitioners invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to remedy what they felt was injustice. This plea was subsequently declined by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge held that it was too late in the day to cast doubts on the Will of 1978 and this judgment of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench by dismissing the appeal in liming. Thus the issue of admission of the execution and validity of the Will of 1978 by the petitioners Will stands.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 20 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Girreddy Suryanarayana Reddy vs The Land Acquisition Officer And ... on 29 July, 2015

In STATE OF PUNJAB vs. DARSHAN SINGH13, Honble Supreme Court noticed that the courts below have been liberally construing and applying the provisions under Sections 151 & 152 CPC even after passing effective orders in the lis pending before them and cautioned that the Court cannot modify, alter or add any terms to its original judgment, decree or order by exercising powers under Sections 151 & 152 CPC.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited & Ors vs Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Private ... on 24 July, 2020

5.8 Per contra, learned counsel, Shri S. Venkatesh, appearing for the Respondent / Renew Power submitted that the instant review petition has been filed for review and / or rectification of judgment dtd. 06.12.2018 under Section 111 & 120 of the Electricity Act, 2003. However, the scope and object of a Review Petition as defined under order NVII Rule 1 of the CPC 1908 is entirely different than that of a rectification application, as defined under Section 152 CPC. In the present Petition/Application, GUVNL has interchangeably used the terms rectification oblique intent to reargue the Appeal No.209 of 2015 which is impermissible in law. Learned counsel was quick to point out that the Review Petitioner has also invoked Section 111 of the Act with the intent to argue the instant petition/application as a fresh appeal without appreciating that even by invoking powers of this Tribunal under a Review Petition or a rectification application, the entire appeal cannot be reargued. He stated that while examining the matter from a prospective of rectification application, it would be relevant to note the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Darshan Singh 2004 1 SCC 328. From a bare perusal of the above judgment, it is evident that rectification cannot be used as a device to question the merits of the case. The present case, GUVNL is attempting to reargue its Appeal by way of the present proceedings which is Impermissible in law.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bpl Communications Limited And Shri ... vs Shri T.P.G. Nambiar, Electro ... on 6 May, 2005

Any erroneous decision or when the omission sought to be corrected goes to the merits of a case is not liable to be reviewed, as held in K. Rajamouli v. A.V.K.N. Swamy and State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh (supra). Against this background, the application (CA No. 37/2005) must be examined and while doing so the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words or change of its apparent grammatical sense.
Company Law Board Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Virendra Swaroop Srivastava Son Of Late ... vs Vaishya Brothers And Co. (P) Ltd. ... on 20 December, 2007

3. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court because a mere perusal of Section 152 makes it clear that Section 152 C.P.C. can be invoked for the limited purposes of correcting clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment. The Section cannot be invoked for claiming a substantive relief which was not granted under the decree, or as a pretext to get the order which has attained finality reviewed. If any authority is required for this proposition, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh .
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next