Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)
M/O Railways vs Suresh on 7 December, 2020 cites

G. Narasimha Rao vs Regional Joint Director Of School ... on 19 November, 2003

"In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Ajit Babu vs. Union of India and others, (1997) 6 SCC 473 and the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra RA 200/00001/2017 (in OA 155/1999) Pradesh in G.Narasimha Rao vs. Regional Director of School Education & others, 2005 (4) SLR 720, which was followed by the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in Union of India & others vs. Phool Chandra & others (RA No.19 of 2011), MA No.3594 of 2014, which is an application for condonation of delay, deserves to Page 10 of 12 Sub : Review 11 RAs 203/00010 -23/2020 be an is accordingly rejected. Consequently, the Review Application also deserves to be rejected as being barred by limitation. Moreover, the review can be made only when there is an error apparent on the face of record or on discovery of any new and important material which even after due diligence was not available. In the present case, no such error could be shown. We also do not find either of the things. There is no scope for entering again into merits of the case. The review cannot be sought merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of erroneous view, if any, taken earlier. If the review applicant is not satisfied with the order passed by this Tribunal, remedy lies elsewhere. The scope of review is very limited. It is not permissible for the Tribunal to act as an appellate court.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 92 - Full Document

M.R. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1995

5. Regarding preparation of OT claim aspect is concerned, this Tribunal has specifically dealt with the issue in the order itself while holding that the respondents are estopped to take the plea that the lower staff has not taken permission for verification for wrong done on behalf of the respondent-department. Furthermore the question regarding limitation aspect is concerned, the O.A. has been decided on the basis of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648, State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Yogendra Shrivastava (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 251; M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India and others (1995) 5 SCC 628; wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if there is continuous wrong being Page 5 of 12 Sub : Review 6 RAs 203/00010 -23/2020 done by the respondents then denial of benefits occurs every month when the salary is paid. So it may be noted that scope of review under the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, which provision is analogous to Section 22 (3) (f) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is very limited.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 597 - J S Verma - Full Document

Ajit Kumar Rath vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 2 November, 1999

6. The power of review available to this Tribunal is the same as has been given to a Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The apex court has clearly stated in Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others, (1999) 9 SCC 596 that: "a review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it". This Tribunal can not review its order unless the error is plain and apparent. It has clearly been further held by the apex court Page 6 of 12 Sub : Review 7 RAs 203/00010 -23/2020 in the said case that: "[A]ny other attempt, except an attempt to correct an apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment".
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 676 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Smt. Meera Bhanja vs Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury on 16 November, 1995

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Meera Bhanja (Smt.) Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt.), (1995)1 SCC 170 referring to certain earlier judgments, observed that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record. 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 can not be cured in a review proceeding.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 495 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Tarsem Singh on 13 August, 2008

5. Regarding preparation of OT claim aspect is concerned, this Tribunal has specifically dealt with the issue in the order itself while holding that the respondents are estopped to take the plea that the lower staff has not taken permission for verification for wrong done on behalf of the respondent-department. Furthermore the question regarding limitation aspect is concerned, the O.A. has been decided on the basis of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648, State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Yogendra Shrivastava (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 251; M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India and others (1995) 5 SCC 628; wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if there is continuous wrong being Page 5 of 12 Sub : Review 6 RAs 203/00010 -23/2020 done by the respondents then denial of benefits occurs every month when the salary is paid. So it may be noted that scope of review under the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, which provision is analogous to Section 22 (3) (f) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is very limited.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 2254 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

K Ajit Babu And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 25 July, 1997

"In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Ajit Babu vs. Union of India and others, (1997) 6 SCC 473 and the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra RA 200/00001/2017 (in OA 155/1999) Pradesh in G.Narasimha Rao vs. Regional Director of School Education & others, 2005 (4) SLR 720, which was followed by the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in Union of India & others vs. Phool Chandra & others (RA No.19 of 2011), MA No.3594 of 2014, which is an application for condonation of delay, deserves to Page 10 of 12 Sub : Review 11 RAs 203/00010 -23/2020 be an is accordingly rejected. Consequently, the Review Application also deserves to be rejected as being barred by limitation. Moreover, the review can be made only when there is an error apparent on the face of record or on discovery of any new and important material which even after due diligence was not available. In the present case, no such error could be shown. We also do not find either of the things. There is no scope for entering again into merits of the case. The review cannot be sought merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of erroneous view, if any, taken earlier. If the review applicant is not satisfied with the order passed by this Tribunal, remedy lies elsewhere. The scope of review is very limited. It is not permissible for the Tribunal to act as an appellate court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 297 - V N Khare - Full Document

Union Of India And Others vs Phool Chand And Others on 24 August, 2012

"In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Ajit Babu vs. Union of India and others, (1997) 6 SCC 473 and the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra RA 200/00001/2017 (in OA 155/1999) Pradesh in G.Narasimha Rao vs. Regional Director of School Education & others, 2005 (4) SLR 720, which was followed by the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in Union of India & others vs. Phool Chandra & others (RA No.19 of 2011), MA No.3594 of 2014, which is an application for condonation of delay, deserves to Page 10 of 12 Sub : Review 11 RAs 203/00010 -23/2020 be an is accordingly rejected. Consequently, the Review Application also deserves to be rejected as being barred by limitation. Moreover, the review can be made only when there is an error apparent on the face of record or on discovery of any new and important material which even after due diligence was not available. In the present case, no such error could be shown. We also do not find either of the things. There is no scope for entering again into merits of the case. The review cannot be sought merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of erroneous view, if any, taken earlier. If the review applicant is not satisfied with the order passed by this Tribunal, remedy lies elsewhere. The scope of review is very limited. It is not permissible for the Tribunal to act as an appellate court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 21 - S K Mittal - Full Document
1   2 Next