Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.21 seconds)Section 3 in Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Indian Bank vs M/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996
In the said decision, the Apex Court has also noticed the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank, supra, wherein it is stated that "since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the Court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, the Courts have Been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practised upon that Court. Similarly, where the Court is misled by a party or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the Court has inherent power to recall its order. In the present case, the observations made by the Apex Court, in my view would apply in all its force. The plaintiffs/private respondents in these proceedings have misled the Courts by misrepresenting the facts and the Trial Court was made to believe that certain proceedings were still pending before the Courts for adjudication and thereby allowed the Courts to commit a mistake which is apparent on the face of the record and if not for misrepresentation, the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact, did not exist and its perpetration would result in miscarriage of justice and therefore nothing would preclude this Court from rectifying the error which is apparent on the face of the record. Even otherwise, the meaning of the expression "for any other sufficient cause" which finds a place under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC would definitely assist this Court to correct a decree or order passed under this appreciation or on the basis of misrepresentation of facts.
Abhijit Tea Company Pvt. Ltd vs Terai Tea Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors on 8 November, 1995
In support of that contention, the learned Counsel firstly relies upon the observations made by Apex Court in the case of M/s. Avijit Tea Company Private Limited, supra. That was a case where on facts, the Court came to the conclusion that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the Apex Court was of the view that the order made by the learned Single Judge in reviewing the earlier order granting refund was impermissible.
Parsion Devi & Ors vs Sumitri Devi & Ors on 14 October, 1997
In Parsion Devi's case, supra, has explained under what circumstances, a judgment or order could be reviewed in exercise of the provisions under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC. In that, Court has observed that a judgment may be open to review inter alia, if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter can only be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. The aforesaid view of the Apex Court in reiteration of the earlier principles stated and restated by Supreme Court in more than one decision. This well-settled law may not once again come to the aid of private respondents. The Apex Court, has similarly stated that power of review can be exercised, in a case where there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record and if the error is self-evident. In the instant case, the law declared by the Apex Court would be beneficial to the review petitioner, rather than the private respondents in view of the facts noticed by me earlier.
Lily Thomas, Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 April, 2000
In the case of Lily Thomas, supra, the Apex Court in fact has observed that the power of review can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The power of review can be exercised in correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. The observations made by the Apex Court in this decision may not assist the learned Senior Counsel for the reason that in the present case, I have come to the conclusion that there is error apparent on the face of the record since this Court had proceeded on the wrong assumption in view of suppression of material facts by the plaintiff before the Trial Court.
Patel Narshi Thakershi And Ors. vs Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji on 2 March, 1970
This Court also was not informed by BDA about the factual misrepresentation made by the plaintiffs, both in their plaint as well as in the affidavits filed along with the applications for grant of temporary injunction. For the first time, these important facts are highlighted by BDA in its review petition. If these facts had been brought to the notice of the Court, I do not think neither the Trial Court would have granted any interim order nor this Court would have confirmed the same by rejecting the appeal filed by BDA, but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist has passed orders which would affect a public institution and if these orders are allowed to exist, it shall result in miscarriage of justice and therefore, the error committed by this Court requires to be rectified. At this stage, it would be useful to notice the observations made by the Apex Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, wherein the Court has observed that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice, nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error.