Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.26 seconds)Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1995
Therefore, it can safely be
held that the petitioners have not made out any case within the
meaning of Article 137 read with Order XL of the Supreme
Court Rules and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing the
judgment in Sarla Mudgal case. The petition is misconceived
and bereft of any substance."
Section 114 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Kamal Sengupta & Anr on 16 June, 2008
27. On perusal of the record and in the light of the judgments passed in
the case of S. Bhagirathi Amaal and State of West Bengal (supra), there is
no error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the order
impugned.
Article 145 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Chajju Ram vs Neki on 27 February, 1922
The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in
Chajju Ram vs. Neki17, and approved by this Court in Moran
Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose
Athanasius & Ors.18 to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds
at least analogous to those specified in the rule".
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs Aribam Pishak Sharma And Ors. on 25 January, 1979
In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma
reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, the Apex Court was examining an order
passed by the Judicial Commissioner who was reviewing an earlier judgment
that went in favour of the appellant, while deciding a review application filed by
the respondents therein who took a ground that the predecessor Court had
overlooked two important documents that showed that the respondents were in
possession of the sites through which the appellant had sought easementary
rights to access his home- stead. The said appeal was allowed by this Court
with the following observations: