Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.34 seconds)Section 11 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Lily Thomas, Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 May, 2000
"The law has made clear distinction between what is an erroneous decision and
an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by a
higher forum, the latter can be corrected by exercise of review jurisdiction. It is a
settled principle of law that a Review Petition has a limited purpose that cannot
be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. The similar views was also held by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 55/2021 Page 2 of 4
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:15.12.2022
17:36:21
various High Courts of States and Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lily Thomas & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2000)
Section 91 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Sudha S K @ Saramma vs Jobins Mathew on 10 July, 2020
6 SCC 224] held view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the
statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated as an
appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a
ground for review...." Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Saramma V. Mathew in
2001 (1) KLJ 521 observed that an error which is not self-evident and has to be
detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on
the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. The Review
petitioner during the proceedings vide his submissions has failed to point out any
error apparent on the face of record or otherwise and also fail to justify on what
basis the new grounds and new facts can be considered under the present
proceeding. There is neither any mistake nor any error apparent on the face of
record nor there is any discovery of any new and important matter or evidence,
which could not have been discovered earlier of which was not within the
knowledge of the review petitioner. In the light of the above, there is no substance
in the present Review Petition, the Review Petitioner cannot be permitted to
reopen the concluded judgment and accordingly, the Review Petition is not
maintainable and therefore dismissed.
1