Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil And Ors on 20 July, 2001
Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353; N. Balakrishnan v. M.
8
Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222; P.K. Ramachandran
v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276; Vedabai v.
Shantaram Baburao Patil, AIR 2001 SC 2582; State of
Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, AIR 2005 SC 2191; Maniben
Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan
Mumbai, 2012 (5) SCC 157; Amalendu Kumar Bera v.
State of West Bengal, 2013 (4) SCC 52 and Office of the
Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd.,
2012 AIR SCW 1812, held that the application for
condonation of delay did not bear any explanation
indicating "sufficient cause" much less reasonable
explanation, hence there was no scope to entertain the said
prayer for condonation of delay, and dismissed the
application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Applying the same principle to this case, this Court is of
the considered view that no case is made out indicating
"sufficient cause" for condonation of delay. Accordingly,
this Court is not inclined to condone the delay caused in
preferring the review application at a belated stage. Hence,
the application is dismissed for want of "sufficient cause".
State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005
Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353; N. Balakrishnan v. M.
8
Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222; P.K. Ramachandran
v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276; Vedabai v.
Shantaram Baburao Patil, AIR 2001 SC 2582; State of
Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, AIR 2005 SC 2191; Maniben
Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan
Mumbai, 2012 (5) SCC 157; Amalendu Kumar Bera v.
State of West Bengal, 2013 (4) SCC 52 and Office of the
Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd.,
2012 AIR SCW 1812, held that the application for
condonation of delay did not bear any explanation
indicating "sufficient cause" much less reasonable
explanation, hence there was no scope to entertain the said
prayer for condonation of delay, and dismissed the
application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Applying the same principle to this case, this Court is of
the considered view that no case is made out indicating
"sufficient cause" for condonation of delay. Accordingly,
this Court is not inclined to condone the delay caused in
preferring the review application at a belated stage. Hence,
the application is dismissed for want of "sufficient cause".
Amalendu Kumar Bera & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal on 22 March, 2013
Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353; N. Balakrishnan v. M.
8
Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222; P.K. Ramachandran
v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276; Vedabai v.
Shantaram Baburao Patil, AIR 2001 SC 2582; State of
Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, AIR 2005 SC 2191; Maniben
Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan
Mumbai, 2012 (5) SCC 157; Amalendu Kumar Bera v.
State of West Bengal, 2013 (4) SCC 52 and Office of the
Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd.,
2012 AIR SCW 1812, held that the application for
condonation of delay did not bear any explanation
indicating "sufficient cause" much less reasonable
explanation, hence there was no scope to entertain the said
prayer for condonation of delay, and dismissed the
application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Applying the same principle to this case, this Court is of
the considered view that no case is made out indicating
"sufficient cause" for condonation of delay. Accordingly,
this Court is not inclined to condone the delay caused in
preferring the review application at a belated stage. Hence,
the application is dismissed for want of "sufficient cause".
State Of Orissa And Another vs Smt. Bishnupriya Routray And Another on 22 April, 2014
6. From the above pleadings of the parties, so far as
codonation of delay application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is concerned, this Court finds that the
reasons ascribed to condone the delay do not justify the
"sufficient cause", inasmuch it clearly indicates that there
was bureaucratic movement of the file. This Court
considered the similar question in State of Orissa v.
Bishnupriya Routray, 2014 (II) ILR-CUT-847 and, relying
upon judgments of the apex Court in Collector (LA) v. Mst.
Shivdeo Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 8 February, 1961
In Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963
SC 1909 the apex Court pointed out that 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 definite limitations to the exercise of the
power of review. The same could be exercised on the
discovery of new and important matters 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 also be exercised where some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record was found, or 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 and the power of
11
review is not to be confused with appellate power which
may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of
errors committed by the subordinate court.
Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury on 16 November, 1994
9. Applying the said analogy to the present context,
it appears at the outset that even though the opposite
parties in the writ petition-cum-review petitioners had
entered appearance, did not choose to file any counter
affidavit to rebut the contention raised by the writ
petitioner-opposite party. Therefore, applying the doctrine
of non-traverse the writ petition was allowed in favour of
the worker-opposite party and against the said order the
employer-review petitioners preferred writ appeal, which
was dismissed summarily. On the basis of certain
observation, the review petitioners preferred this review
application on the plea that certain documents have been
obtained subsequently. Therefore, this review application
has been filed. But, the limitation, which has been
discussed above, in exercise of the power of review does not
contemplate so, that on discovery of certain documents
subsequently a review application can be filed so as to
12
make re-hearing or a fresh decision in the case. The
limitation underlying in Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC, principle
of which is also applicable to review the order under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. This principle has been
laid down by the apex Court in A.T. Sharma v. A./P.
Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047 and Meera Bhanja v.
Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, AIR 1995 SC 455.