Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.32 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs Aribam Pishak Sharma And Ors. on 25 January, 1979
In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, this Court
answered in affirmative the question whether the High Court can review an
order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution and proceeded to observe:
Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury on 16 November, 1994
In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury it was held that:
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 October, 1963
In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P., another three-Judge
Bench reiterated that the power of review is not analogous to the appellate
power and observed: (AIR p. 1377, para 11)
"11. ... A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
-13-
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent
error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for
dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but
it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate
argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial
point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably
be no two opinions, entertained about it, a clear case of error
apparent on the face of the record would be made out."
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shivdeo Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 8 February, 1961
On an appeal to this Court
it was held as under: (SCC p. 390, para 3)
"It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of
Punjab there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to
preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which
inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage
of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it.
But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review.
The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the
review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order
was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised
on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the
ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be
the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be
confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate
court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate
court."
Parsion Devi & Ors vs Sumitri Devi & Ors on 14 October, 1997
In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, the Court observed: (SCC p. 719, para 9)
"9. ... 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 the record justifying the court to exercise its power of
review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC ... A review petition, it must be
remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an
appeal in disguise'."
Article 145 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde And ... vs Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale on 25 September, 1959
The following observations in connection with
an error apparent on the face of the record in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan
Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale were also noted: (AIR p. 137)
"An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of
reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions
can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be
established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated
arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari
according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to
issue such a writ." (SCR pp. 901-02)