Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.26 seconds)Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos And ... vs The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius And ... on 21 May, 1954
In fact, there is plethora of judicial pronouncements
of the Supreme Court, which shows that there can be exceptional
cases, where a deviation from the grounds of review, as propounded
in Moran Mar Basselios Cathlicos (supra), is possible and one of
such cases is the case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India, reported in
(2000) 6 SCC 224 : 2000 CriLJ 2433, wherein, having taken into
account the facts that (a) the power of review is a creation of statute
and not an inherent power, that (b) no power of review can be
exercised if not given to a court or Tribunal either specifically or by
Patna High Court C. REV. No.110 of 2016 dt.08-09-2016
27/44
necessary implication; and that (c) under the guise of review
jurisdiction, merit of a decision cannot really be examined, the
Supreme Court has, in unequivocal terms, pointed out that justice is,
after all, a virtue, which must prevail over all barriers and that the
rules, procedures or technicalities of law must, if necessary, bend
before justice and that such a situation may arise, when a court finds
that it has rendered a decision, which it would not have rendered, but
for an assumption of fact, which, in fact, did not exist and its
adherence to such a faulty decision would result in miscarriage of
justice.
Board Of Control For Cricket, India & Anr vs Netaji Cricket Club & Ors on 10 January, 2005
A
mistake, on the part of the court, would include, according to the
decision in Board of Control for Cricket in India (supra), a mistake
in the nature of the undertaking, which may have been given by a
counsel meaning thereby that when a counsel, on a mistaken belief
or on an erroneous or incorrect instruction, make a statement and the
court acts on such a statement; but, on a review application having
been subsequently filed, the court finds that it had misunderstood the
counsel‟s submission or had got misled by a counsel‟s submission or
when the court finds that it had proceeded on an assumption of fact,
which did not really exist, or when it finds that it had misinterpreted
a provision of law or had acted on a misconception of law and that
Patna High Court C. REV. No.110 of 2016 dt.08-09-2016
30/44
the error, so crept in, was, as a result of subsequent event or
otherwise, apparent on the face of the record, and that such error had
caused, or would cause, miscarriage of justice, such a reason would
be a „sufficient reason‟ calling for exercise of the power of review.
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Lily Thomas, Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 April, 2000
(iii) One of the cases, which has helped in the
expansion of the court's power to review its order is the case of Lily
Thomas (supra) inasmuch as Lily Thomas (supra) ruled that
ordinarily, the power of review, being a creature of statute, cannot
be exercised as an inherent power, yet such technicalities of law may
have to be bent, in an appropriate cases, for the purpose of
correcting an order committed by the court if such an error arises out
of a presumption of fact, which was nonexistent, and when the court
finds that its refusal to review its own error would cause, or has
caused, grave miscarriage of justice.
Girdhari Lal Gupta vs D.H. Mehta And Anr. on 18 February, 1971
34. For instance, if the attention of the Court was not
drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing,
the Court will review its judgment. (See, Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D.
H. Mehta and Another (AIR 1971 SC 2162). The Court may also
reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is
necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice.
O. N. Mahindroo vs Distt. Judge, Delhi & Anr on 4 September, 1970
Municipal Board, Pratabgarh And Anr. vs Mahendra Singh Chawla And Ors. on 11 October, 1982
Further observed the Supreme Court, in Municipal Board,
Pratabgarh (supra), on this aspect of law, thus,
".... Undoubtedly, rule of law must prevail
but as is often said, 'rule of law must run akin to rule of
life. And life of law is not logic but experience'. By
pointing out the error, which according to us crept
into the High Court's judgment, the legal position is
restored and the rule of law has been ensured its
pristine glory...".