Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.45 seconds)Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 145 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 October, 1963
In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. this
Court opined:
Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury on 16 November, 1994
8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhury while quoting with approval a passage
from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak
Sharma this Court once again held that review
proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to
be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47
Rule 1 CPC.
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs Aribam Pishak Sharma And Ors. on 25 January, 1979
8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhury while quoting with approval a passage
from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak
Sharma this Court once again held that review
proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to
be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47
Rule 1 CPC.
Lily Thomas, Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 May, 2000
16. Error contemplated under the rule must be such which is
apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be
fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. The power
of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to
substitute a view. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not
a ground for review. This Court, in Lily Thomas & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors., [(2000) 6 SCC 224], held as under:
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos And ... vs The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius And ... on 21 May, 1954
The words 'any other sufficient reason appearing in Order 47
RP No. 50/2019 Page 6 of 10
Rule 1 CPC' must mean 'a reason sufficient on grounds at
least analogous to those specified in the rule' as was held in
Chhajju Ram v. Neki, [AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by
this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev.
Mar Poulose Athanasius, [AIR 1954 SC 526] Error apparent
on the face of the proceedings is an error which is based on
clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law.
T. C. Basappa vs T. Nagappa And Another on 5 May, 1954
In T.C.
Basappa v. T. Nagappa, [AIR 1954 SC 440] this Court held
that such error is an error which is a patent error and not a
mere wrong decision.
Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 July, 1980
"13. Review of the earlier order cannot be done unless the court
is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order,
undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. This
Court, in Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India & Ors. [1980
(Supp) SCC 562], held as under: