Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.86 seconds)
National Highways Authority Of India vs Kshipra Realcon L.L.P. Through Partner ... on 22 May, 2024
cites
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The National Highways Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1995
Therefore, it can safely be held that the
petitioners have not made out any case within the meaning of
Article 137 read with Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules and
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing the judgment in Sarla
Mudgal case. The petition is misconceived and bereft of any
substance."
Chajju Ram vs Neki on 27 February, 1922
T h e words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted
i n Chajju Ram vs. Neki, and approved by this Court in
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar
Poulose Athanasius & Ors. to mean "a reason sufficient on
grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule".
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Kamal Sengupta & Anr on 16 June, 2008
In view of the aforesaid and in the light of the judgments passed in the
case of S. Bhagirathi Amaal and State of West Bengal (supra), there is no
error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the order
impugned.
Article 145 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 114 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs Aribam Pishak Sharma And Ors. on 25 January, 1979
In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma
reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, the Apex Court was examining an order
passed by the Judicial Commissioner who was reviewing an earlier judgment
that went in favour of the appellant, while deciding a review application filed by
the respondents therein who took a ground that the predecessor Court had
overlooked two important documents that showed that the respondents were in
possession of the sites through which the appellant had sought easementary
rights to access his home- stead. The said appeal was allowed by this Court
with the following observations: