Natesa Naicker vs Sambanda Chettiar on 21 July, 1941
13. The above decision of the Madras High Court was followed by Wadsworth, J.. in Natesa Naicker v. Sambanda Chettiar, AIR 1941 Madras 918. His Lordship said at p. 920:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Sri Karutha Kritya Rameswaraswami Varu ... vs R. Ramalinga Raju And Ors. on 22 November, 1957
14. The aforesaid decisions of the Madras High Court were followed by Bhirnasankaram J., in Rameswaraswami Varu v. Ramalinga Raiu. .
Tinkari Sen And Ors. vs Dulal Chandra Das And Ors. on 14 December, 1966
15. The same view was taken by Biiaesh Mukherii, J., in Tinkari Sen v. Dulal Chandra. . His Lordship said at p. 522:
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 October, 1963
24. Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the court, shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. Hence, where there is a decision of the Supreme Court bearing on a point and where a Court has taken a view on that point, which is not consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it needs no elaborate argument to point to the the error and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about such error. Applying the above test laid down by Raja-gopala Ayyangar, J.. in , such an error would clearly be an error apparent on the face of the record-The reasoning of Srinivasa Iyengar. J., in AIR 1927 Mad 998 and of Waller, J., in AIR 1933 Mad 731, that a mistake of law apparent from a contrary decision of a superior court, cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record, cannot prevail in view of the test laid down by the Supreme Court as to what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.
Mt. Jamna Kunwar vs Lal Bahadur And Ors. on 4 October, 1945
25. The reasoning of Garth. C. J., In (1876) ILR 1 Cal 184 that a counsel omitting to cite a decided case, ought not to be allowed to demand a second trial, and the reasoning of Dawson Miller C. J., in AIR 1924 Pat 250 that the ignorance of a party or his pleader as to a ruling, ought not to be allowed to be pleaded in support of an application for review, cannot prevail against the decision of the Federal Court in Jamna Kuer v. Lal Bahadur. AIR 1950 F. C. 131. Mahajan, J. (as he then was), who spoke for the Federal Court, said that where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, the question as to how that error occurred, is of no relevance for the purpose of review, and that it is immaterial whether such error occurred bv reason of the counsel's mistake or had crept in by reason of oversight on the part of the court.
Sri Rajah Bommadevara Venkatarayulu ... vs Sri Rajah Lanka Venkata Rattamma Garu on 18 August, 1938
26. As stated by Wadsworth, J.. in Venkatarayulu Naidu v. Rattamma Garu, AIR 1939 Mad 293, where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, it should be corrected at the earliest possible time without driving the parties to the expenses of an appeal or revision petition to which there would be no answer.
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 342 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976
Opporti Padhi vs Paila Ujjulla And Anr. on 31 March, 1927
In Opporti PadhJ v. Paila Ujiula. AIR 1927 Mad 998, Srinivasa Aiyangar. J. doubted the correctness of the decision of the Madras High Court In AIR 1924 Mad 998. His Lordship said at p. 1000:
1