Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.76 seconds)Parsion Devi & Ors vs Sumitri Devi & Ors on 14 October, 1997
5.2 The sine qua non for exercise of review
jurisdiction is that there must be an error apparent
on face of record of the judgment or order. The "error
apparent on face of record" means, as explained by the
Supreme Court in Parsion Devi Vs Sumitri Devi [(1997)
8 SCC 715] an error in the judgment which is self-
Haridas Das vs Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors on 16 July, 2007
C/MCA/483/2014 CAV ORDER
evident and does not require a process of reasoning.
The error of apparent on the face of record is
distinct from an wrong decision. It therefore follows
that the matter cannot be permitted to be reargued and
cannot be reheard on the specious plea of detecting an
error or by submitting that the judgment was
erroneous. These will not fall within the ambit of the
review jurisdiction. Again in Haridas Das Vs Usha
Rani Banik (Smt) [(2006) 4 SCC 78] the Supreme Court
held that seeking review on the ground that reviewing
petitioner had not highlighted all the aspects and
could have argued more forcefully were no grounds for
review.
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos And ... vs The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius And ... on 21 May, 1954
C/MCA/483/2014 CAV ORDER
The words "any other sufficient reason" has
been interpreted 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 and Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520 :
Union Of India vs Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors on 23 April, 2013
(AIR 1954 SC 526), to mean "a reason sufficient
on grounds at least analogous to those
specified in the rule". The same principles
have been reiterated in Union of India v.
Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. and Ors.,
JT 2013 (8) SC 275 : (2013 AIR SCW 2905).
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S. Bagirathi Ammal vs Palani Roman Catholic Mission on 6 December, 2007
(i) In any view Review Application under Order
47 Rule 1, CPC, was maintainable for seeking
additional evidence. The contention of learned
advocate for the respondent that Review
Application is not maintainable and not
acceptable in view of Supreme Court decision in
S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs Palani Roman Catholic
Mission [(2009) 10 SCC 464];
The Limitation Act, 1963
Manjulabai Wd/O Shalikram Gohate And ... vs Bhagirathibai Wd/O Ganeshrao Gohate on 23 April, 2004
In the Memorandum
of the Review Application, reliance was placed on
decisions (i) of Bombay High Court in Manjulabai wd/o.
Shalikram Gohate Vs Bhagirathibai wd/o Ganeshrao
Gohate; (ii) of the Supreme Court in Shantidevi Vs
Daro Devi [(2006) 13 SCC 775] in support of the
contentions.
1