Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (2.16 seconds)

Ajit Kumar Rath vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 2 November, 1999

14. As regards the first issue, relying on the decisions of this Court in Inderchand Jain (dead) through Lrs. vs. Motilal (dead) through Lrs. 2, Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and others 3 and Parsion Devi and others vs. Sumitri Devi and others4, it was submitted by the appellant that the exercise of review jurisdiction was not warranted at all. In Inderchand Jain it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 are as under:­ "10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Sun Mar 08 00:53:53 IST 2020 C/CRA/403/2016 IA ORDER court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 676 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Parsion Devi & Ors vs Sumitri Devi & Ors on 14 October, 1997

14. As regards the first issue, relying on the decisions of this Court in Inderchand Jain (dead) through Lrs. vs. Motilal (dead) through Lrs. 2, Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and others 3 and Parsion Devi and others vs. Sumitri Devi and others4, it was submitted by the appellant that the exercise of review jurisdiction was not warranted at all. In Inderchand Jain it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 are as under:­ "10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Sun Mar 08 00:53:53 IST 2020 C/CRA/403/2016 IA ORDER court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 1043 - S R Babu - Full Document

Lily Thomas, Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 April, 2000

In Lily Thomas v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 56) "56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise." ..............................
Supreme Court of India Cites 67 - Cited by 594 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1   2 Next