Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)
Aftab Qureshi @ Raja And 3 Others vs Devendra Dhawan on 7 May, 2026 cites

Grindlays Bank Ltd vs Central Government Industrial ... on 12 December, 1980

48. The distinction between these two jurisdictions has been judicially recognized in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, wherein it was explained that though a power of substantive review must arise from statute, every judicial or quasi-judicial authority nevertheless possesses inherent jurisdiction to correct procedural errors, misconceptions, or inadvertent mistakes attributable to the adjudicatory process itself. Procedural review inheres in every forumex debito justitiae and may legitimately be exercised where the earlier order suffers from procedural misconception or from a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by the authority itself.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 558 - A P Sen - Full Document

Patel Narshi Thakershi And Ors. vs Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji on 2 March, 1970

In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji2, wherein it was categorically held that the power of review is not an inherent power and must be conferred by law either expressly or by necessary implication. Learned counsel submits that the Court clearly observed that where the parent statute does not confer review jurisdiction, neither the authority nor its delegate can reopen or reconsider an earlier decision. It has therefore been argued that the appellate authority functioning under the U P Act No.13 of 1972 could not have recalled its earlier judgment in absence of statutory conferment of review power.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 565 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Kalabharati Advertising vs Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors on 6 September, 2010

8. Reliance has further been placed upon Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania3, wherein the Supreme Court reiterated the settled proposition that unless the statute or rules expressly so permit, a review application against judicial or quasi-judicial orders is not maintainable. Learned counsel submits that the Court held that review jurisdiction is a creation of statute and any order passed in purported exercise of review powers without statutory sanction is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. Particular emphasis has been laid upon the observations that an authority cannot, under the garb of clarification, modification or correction, undertake reconsideration of the matter on merits in absence of statutory power of review.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 507 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Smt. Pushpa Sareen vs State Of U.P. on 12 February, 2015

9. The petitioners have also relied upon Pushpa Sareen v. State of U.P.4 to contend that the power of substantive review cannot be implied and must necessarily emanate from an enabling statutory provision. It has been argued that while the said judgment recognizes existence of a limited procedural review inhering in judicial and quasi-judicial authorities for rectifying defects such as absence of notice or violation of natural justice, the same simultaneously draws a clear distinction between procedural review and review on merits. Learned counsel submits that this Court in the aforesaid judgment expressly held that substantive review remains impermissible in absence of statutory conferment and only a limited procedural review is maintainable in exceptional situations involving procedural defects.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 87 - Full Document

Siddh Nath And Others vs Additional Commissioner-Iiird Devi ... on 7 February, 2023

21. Reliance has additionally been placed upon Sidh Nath Tripathi (Dr.) v. IInd Additional District Judge11 to contend that where an order has been passed under misconception or by overlooking material aspects on record, the Court is competent to correct such mistake. According to the respondents, the impugned order merely seeks to remedy such misconception and therefore falls within the permissible ambit of inherent procedural jurisdiction.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kanika Mal & Ors on 10 April, 2023

12. The petitioners have further relied upon Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Kanika and Others7 to contend that while limited clarificatory or clerical corrections may be permissible under Sections 151 and 152 C.P.C., the Court cannot alter findings affecting substantive rights under the guise of clarification or correction. It has been submitted that the Supreme Court has clearly held that any exercise which alters substantive adjudication or affects rights of parties would in substance amount to review and must satisfy the strict requirements governing review jurisdiction.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Devendra Dhawan vs Aftab Kureshi And 3 Others on 28 July, 2023

3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that the respondent-landlord instituted P.A. Case No. 79 of 2013 (Devendra Dhawan vs. Aftab Qureshi and others) on 22.10.2013 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U P Act No.13 of 1972 seeking release of the tenanted premises setting up the ground of bona fide requirement for his son. Upon notice, the petitioners-tenants entered appearance on 01.09.2014 and filed their written statement contesting the release application and disputing the alleged need set up by the respondent-landlord.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P Padia - Full Document
1