Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.40 seconds)

Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs Aribam Pishak Sharma And Ors. on 25 January, 1979

In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aibam Pishak Sharma reported in AIR 1979 SC 1047, the Supreme Court held that, "there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 773 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Sukumar Sengupta And Ors on 3 May, 1990

In Union of India v. Kamal Sengupta reported in 2008 (8) SCC 612, the Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 14 and 15, held that, "14. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justiciae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court earlier.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 35 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1