Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (1.00 seconds)
The State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Sudipta Ghosh on 5 October, 2023 cites

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

Relying upon the judgments in Aribam [Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389] and Meera Bhanja [Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170] it was observed as under : (SCC p. 719, para 9) '9. Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC 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 self evident and has to be detected b by y 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 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition, it must 7.2.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 773 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury on 16 November, 1994

Relying upon the judgments in Aribam [Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389] and Meera Bhanja [Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170] it was observed as under : (SCC p. 719, para 9) '9. Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC 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 self evident and has to be detected b by y 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 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition, it must 7.2.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 635 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Sow Chandra Kanta And Another vs Sheik Habib on 13 March, 1975

145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record (Order 40 Rule 1, Supreme Court Rul Rules, es, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility": Sow Chandra Page 45 of 50 Kante v. Sheikh Habib [(1975) 1 SCC 674 : 1975 SCC (Tax) 200 : (1975) 3 SCR 933] ."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 347 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next