Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.71 seconds)

Sujata Gupta Winfield And Others vs Cic Society on 28 February, 2025

51. The proposition laid down in Shri Ram Sahu (supra), S. Madhusudhan Reddy (supra) and Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), if crystallized in a nutshell, lays down that any and every mistake or error does not come within the purview of review. For a review petition to be maintainable on the principle of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the error has to be palpable, apparent on the face of the order. The review court cannot sit in an appeal in the disguise of a review petition over its own order. Even errors of law, let alone of 19 fact, are amenable to appellate jurisdiction and do not ordinarily come within the ambit of the review jurisdiction.
Calcutta High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharyya - Full Document

Union Of India vs A.M. Sirish on 8 March, 2019

We are in agreement with the proposition laid down in the above judgment of this Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we approve the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the respondent was directed to join the service to 1 (2017) 11 SCC 407 3 complete the period of one year and three months to make him eligible for availing the benefits of VRS.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1