Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.39 seconds)Article 301 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Thadikulangara Pylee'S Son Pathrose vs Ayyazhiveettil Lakshmi Amma'S Son ... on 5 July, 1968
6. Nor can we regard these, as amounting to the discovery of a "mistake" or an "error apparent on the face of th = record". While we agree that, the reversal or variance, or the overruling of a iudicial decision bv a subseauent one amounts to discovery of an error or a flaw in the reasoning of the decision reversed, varied or overruled, we are unable to hold that in every such case, there is an "error apparent on the face of the record". The exnressions underlined are Quite strong, and have a well understood -judicial connotation. Mere conflict or divergence of opinion cannot amount to an error apparent on the face of the record- This ground of review asain. should therefore fail. H follows that in the lieht of the authorities discussed, we cannot accept the decisions in Pathrose's case (1969 KLT 15) = (AIR 1969 Ker 186). and in 1969 KLT 686 as laving down correct law.
Article 133 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 4 in The Tobacco Board Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
S.A.L. Narayan Row And Anr. vs Ishwarlal Bhagwandas And Anr. on 7 May, 1965
3. The learned Government Pleader placed his case for review both under the provisions of Order 47. Rule 1 of the C. P. C. and under the inherent powers of the Court. The provisions of Order 47. were invoked on the ground that S. A. L. Naravan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhaewandas (AIR 1965 SC 1818 = 57 ITR 149) had ruled that proceedings relating to tax under Article 226 are 'civil proceedings', for the purposes of Article 133 of the Constitution, and this would attract Order 47.
The Tobacco Board Act, 1975
S.P. Awate vs C.P. Fernandes And Anr. on 17 June, 1958
The Calcutta decision refers to a iudement of Chaela C. J. in S. P Awate v. C. P. Fernandes (AIR 1959 Bom 466). But the Bombay decision assumed that the Court had power to review its order passed on an application under Article 226, and stated that the same could be only on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record which means that the error should be so clear and manifest that no court would allow it to remain on the record and not one to be demonstrated bv a process of ratiocination.
1