Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.02 seconds)
Chandrakant Jagannath Manjrekar And ... vs Shripad Vaikunth Naik on 20 January, 1988 cites

The Nalagarh Dehati Co-Operative ... vs Beli Ram Etc. on 29 August, 1980

6. Even otherwise according to Shri Usgaoncar the discovery of a decision subsequent to the judgment sought to be reviewed is not an error apparent on the face of record. For this proposition he relies on the Full Bench decision of Nalagarh Dehati Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. Nalagarh v. Beli Ram, . This decision no doubt lays down that failure of the Court to take into consideration an existing decision of the Supreme Court taking a different or contrary view on a point covered by its judgment would amount to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. But a failure to take into consideration a decision of the High Court would not amount to any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Rajkumar Rajindra Singh vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 June, 1976

The first of the decision, of Raj Kumar is reported in RajKumar v. Union of India, , Raj Kumar succeeded before the Supreme Court. his services were terminated under rule 5(I) of the Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and though his services were terminated without one months notice in advance there was no payment made to him of pay and allowances at the same time the notice of termination of his services was served on him. The Supreme Court relying upon its earlier decision had rendered that decision. The next decision of Raj Kumar the same person is reported in the same Volume . The Supreme Court had perforce to set aside its own judgment in the case cited supra as it was found that central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 were named with retrospective effect from 1-5-1965. The amendment stated that payment of notice pay and allowances need not be along with service or tender of termination notice. Based on this amendment which had not been noticed earlier by the Supreme Court. the Supreme Court reviewed its own decision. Mr. Rebello therefore now urges that is open for this Court to review the impugned order based on the discovery of the Division Bench decision AIR 1934 Bom 434 referred to supra.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 20 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Dilip Nath Sen vs Certificate Officer And Ors. on 13 June, 1961

In the decision of Dilip Nath Sen v. Certificate Officer while construing the provision of O. 47, R. 1 of C.P.C. the words "any other sufficient reason" appearing therein it is observed that a production of an authority or ruling not brought to the notice of the court at the time of the decision was rendered is not a sufficient reason. He therefore now urges that mere discovery of these two decisions now cannot permit the court to review its own judgment and the review application must fail.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1