Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Parsion Devi & Ors vs Sumitri Devi & Ors on 14 October, 1997
In the case of Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors. the Supreme Court has held as under:
Ambica Quarry Works & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 11 December, 1986
10. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it which was observed by the Supreme Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat .
Bhavnagar University vs Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 3 December, 2002
In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2003) 2 SC 111 (vide para 59), the Supreme observed:
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And ... vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004
As held in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Anr. v. N.R. Vairamani and Anr. AIR 2004 SC 778, a decision cannot be relied on without disclosing the factual situation. In the same judgment the Supreme Court also observed:
Ajit Kumar Rath vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 2 November, 1999
In Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Ors. it was held that the power to review is not an absolute power and is circumscribed by the restriction indicated in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such power can be exercised on the application of a person, on the discovery of new and important matter or the evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be reproduced by him at the time when the order was made. This power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review cannot be sought merely for fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier.
Shanmugam Servai vs P. Periyakaruppan Servai on 20 February, 1996
The power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stays in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. Similarly in Shanmugam Servai versus P. Periyakaruppan Servai the court laid down the legal requirements of review under CPC which is as under:
Shri Anil Kumar Jain And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 5 May, 2005
19. Scope of review being limited was also considered and held in a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Jain and Anr. v. Union of India in CM No. 4274 in WP(C) No. 1246/1990 decided on 5th May, 2005 where the Court has held as under:
R.S. Rajanna vs Sri Basavaiah And Others on 30 September, 1996
The limitation on the powers of the Court under Order 47 Rule 1 are similar and applicable to the jurisdiction available to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With caution the Court has to ensure that such power is not exercised like entertaining an 'Appeal in disguise'. Where conceivably there may be two opinions and an error has to be established by a long drawn process it is not an error apparent on the face of the record. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment in the case of R.S. Rajanna v. Sri Basavaiah and Ors. Para 11 and in the case of Prem Dutt v. Punjab State 1998 Vol. 1 PLR 444.8.