Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.27 seconds)Sow Chandra Kanta And Another vs Sheik Habib on 13 March, 1975
In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sk. Habib[(1975) 1 SCC 674 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 305 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 184 : 1975 SCC (Tax) 200] this Court observed: (SCC p. 675, para 1)
''1. ... A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. ... The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.'"
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos And ... vs The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius And ... on 21 May, 1954
The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule".
Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1995
58. Otherwise also no ground as envisaged under Order 40 of the Supreme Court Rules read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been pleaded in the review petition or canvassed before us during the arguments for the purposes of reviewing the judgment in Sarla Mudgal case [Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 635 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 569] . It is not the case of the petitioners that they have discovered any new and important matter which after the exercise of due diligence was not within their knowledge or could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time of passing of the judgment.
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 145 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India vs Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors on 23 April, 2013
The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275]
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
M/S Awasthi Traders Thru. Prop. Sh. ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Geology And ... on 10 June, 2022
6. The said writ petition was decided on merit vide order dated 10th June, 2022, and admittedly, the review applicants/State Government is not aggrieved by the judgment of this Court on merit. Rather, the only grievance raised in the present review application is with regard to the direction issued to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation for registering F.I.R. and conducting investigation for the charge of filing of Writ Petition (C) No. 11143 of 2020 (M/s. Awasthi Traders Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) at Allahabad High Court and Revision No. 133 (R)/SM/2020 (M/s. Awasthi Traders Vs. District Magistrate, Hamirpur & Anr.) before the revisional authority by the imposter. The Director, CBI is also directed by the said order to submit a report by 05.12.2022.
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 October, 1963
In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1964 SC 1372] this Court opined: (AIR p. 1377, para 11)
''11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an "error apparent on the face of the record". The fact that on the earlier occasion the court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an "error apparent on the face of the record", for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by "error apparent". A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.'
Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury on 16 November, 1994
8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [(1995) 1 SCC 170] while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389] this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.