Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.32 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 152 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Grindlays Bank Ltd vs Central Government Industrial ... on 12 December, 1980
48. The distinction between these two jurisdictions has been judicially recognized in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, wherein it was explained that though a power of substantive review must arise from statute, every judicial or quasi-judicial authority nevertheless possesses inherent jurisdiction to correct procedural errors, misconceptions, or inadvertent mistakes attributable to the adjudicatory process itself. Procedural review inheres in every forumex debito justitiae and may legitimately be exercised where the earlier order suffers from procedural misconception or from a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by the authority itself.
Section 114 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Patel Narshi Thakershi And Ors. vs Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji on 2 March, 1970
In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji2, wherein it was categorically held that the power of review is not an inherent power and must be conferred by law either expressly or by necessary implication. Learned counsel submits that the Court clearly observed that where the parent statute does not confer review jurisdiction, neither the authority nor its delegate can reopen or reconsider an earlier decision. It has therefore been argued that the appellate authority functioning under the U P Act No.13 of 1972 could not have recalled its earlier judgment in absence of statutory conferment of review power.
Kalabharati Advertising vs Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors on 6 September, 2010
8. Reliance has further been placed upon Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania3, wherein the Supreme Court reiterated the settled proposition that unless the statute or rules expressly so permit, a review application against judicial or quasi-judicial orders is not maintainable. Learned counsel submits that the Court held that review jurisdiction is a creation of statute and any order passed in purported exercise of review powers without statutory sanction is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. Particular emphasis has been laid upon the observations that an authority cannot, under the garb of clarification, modification or correction, undertake reconsideration of the matter on merits in absence of statutory power of review.
Smt. Pushpa Sareen vs State Of U.P. on 12 February, 2015
9. The petitioners have also relied upon Pushpa Sareen v. State of U.P.4 to contend that the power of substantive review cannot be implied and must necessarily emanate from an enabling statutory provision. It has been argued that while the said judgment recognizes existence of a limited procedural review inhering in judicial and quasi-judicial authorities for rectifying defects such as absence of notice or violation of natural justice, the same simultaneously draws a clear distinction between procedural review and review on merits. Learned counsel submits that this Court in the aforesaid judgment expressly held that substantive review remains impermissible in absence of statutory conferment and only a limited procedural review is maintainable in exceptional situations involving procedural defects.