Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.37 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 129B in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Smt. Prativa Rani Samanta vs Collector Of Central Excise on 19 September, 1983
In support of his submissions, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of J.K. Synthetics Limited v. Collector of Central Excise 1996 (6) Supreme Court Cases 92 = 1996 (66) ECR 417 (SC); (2) Smt. Prativa Rani Samanta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta 1984 (50) ELT 482 (Tribunal).
Grindlays Bank Ltd vs Central Government Industrial ... on 12 December, 1980
Similarly though provisions of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act and Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act are similar we are unable to persuade ourselves to follow decision of the Delhi High Court rendered in case of Deeasha Suri (supra) because principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. (supra) and S. Nagaraj and Others (supra) are not taken into consideration by Delhi High Court while interpreting Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Even otherwise said decision has persuasive value and not binding on this Court. On perusal of the order dated April 24th, 1997 itself, the Tribunal noticed that the finding recorded against the respondent by the Tribunal was not in conformity with the facts and evidence on record, and therefore, it cannot be said that an error necessitating interference of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
S. Nagaraj And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 26 August, 1993
Similarly though provisions of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act and Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act are similar we are unable to persuade ourselves to follow decision of the Delhi High Court rendered in case of Deeasha Suri (supra) because principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. (supra) and S. Nagaraj and Others (supra) are not taken into consideration by Delhi High Court while interpreting Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Even otherwise said decision has persuasive value and not binding on this Court. On perusal of the order dated April 24th, 1997 itself, the Tribunal noticed that the finding recorded against the respondent by the Tribunal was not in conformity with the facts and evidence on record, and therefore, it cannot be said that an error necessitating interference of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Shivdeo Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 8 February, 1961
The power of review which inheres in every Court of Tribunal of plenary jurisdiction is exercised by the Tribunal to prevent miscarriage of justice and to correct grave and palpable error committed by it. It is exercised to secure the ends of justice within meaning of Rules 41 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. It is not exercised on the ground that the decision recalled was erroneous on merits. We are of the view that the Tribunal has not confused its power to review its earlier order with appellate power. Though in the case of A. T. Sharma (supra) Supreme Court has held that powers of review available to High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, are analogous to provisions of Order 41 Rule 1 CPC, in earlier decision rendered in the case of Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab - AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1909, the Constitution Bench of Apex Court has defined powers of review available to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and ruled 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. Even in subsequent decision i.e. in case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court has explained that the expression "review" is used in the two distinct senses namely (1) a procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a Court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by it and (2) a review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record. As held earlier, this is a case of procedural review and not a case of review on merits where error of law apparent on the face of the record is sought to be corrected.