Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)

Thungabhadra Industries Ltd vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 October, 1963

``13. In order to appreciate the scope of a review, Section 114 CPC has to be read, but this section does not even adumbrate the ambit of interference expected of the court since it merely states that it "may make such order thereon as it thinks fit". The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing "on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason". The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. This is amply evident from the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 47 which states that the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent IA No.254/2024 in TA (AT) No.38/2021 (CA(AT)(INS) No.80/2021) Page 6 of 11 decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Where the order in question is appealable the aggrieved party has adequate and efficacious remedy and the court should exercise the power to review its order with the greatest circumspection. This Court in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. [(1964) 5 SCR 174 : AIR 1964 SC 1372] held as follows : (SCR p.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 784 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Ram Pyare (Dead) Through Lr vs The Deputy Director Of Consolidation on 11 March, 2022

"In our opinion Section 41 of the Act only makes applicable the provisions of Chapters IX and X of the U.P. Land Revenue Act to proceedings initiated under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, including proceedings of appeal and revision. Once the proceedings are initiated under this Act, the procedure laid down in Chapters IX and X shall apply. Section 41, however, does not authorise the initiation of proceedings not contemplated or authorised by the Act. The power of review has to be specifically conferred and unless there is a provision in the Act permitting initiation of such proceedings the question of applicability of procedure laid down in Chapters IX and X of the U.P. Land Revenue Act does not arise.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1