Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.28 seconds)
Usha Bharti (Inre 9654 Misb 2012) (After ... vs State Of U.P.,Thru. Prin.Secy. ... on 4 July, 2013 cites

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

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. The power of the appellate court is distinct from the power of review. The aforesaid proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aibam Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 773 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Inderchand Jain (D) Th.Lrs vs Motilal (D) Th.Lrs on 21 July, 2009

It is an assertion of learned Senior Counsel that while hearing a review petition, this Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. The review constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite proposition that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. This view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inderchand Jain v. Motilal reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the Statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 272 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Daman Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 4 April, 1985

Learned Senior Counsel urged that there is no specific pleading found in the writ petition in support of the contentions of the review-applicant, and moreover the existence of pleading alone cannot entitle the applicant to seek remedy by way of review unless it is established that the said contentions were specifically argued and the grounds pressed before this Court at the time of hearing have escaped attention. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daman Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1985) 2 SCC 670 has held that it is not unusual for parties and counsel to raise innumerable grounds in the petitions and memorandum of appeal etc. but, later, confine themselves, in the course of arguments, to a few of those grounds, obviously because the rest of the grounds are considered even by them to be untenable. No party or counsel is thereafter entitled to make a grievance that the grounds not argued were not considered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 230 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Bhanumati Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P.Tr.Prinl.Sec.& Ors on 4 May, 2010

Shri Raghvendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for other respondents submitted that there is no prayer in the writ petition to declare the provisions of Sections 28 and 29 of the Act of 1961 ultra vires on the ground that they are inconsistent with the provisions of Article 243C and Article 243N of the Constitution, therefore, such prayer cannot be made in the review petition. Moreover, there is no ground to consider the vires of the Sections in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhanumati and others v. State of U.P., reported in 2010 (12) SCC 1, although Shri Shanti Bhushan argued that the provisions of No Confidence Motion was not under challenge in this case, therefore, it cannot be treated as a precedent in regard to the point raised in the writ petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 206 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next