Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.23 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Foreigners Act, 1946
Section 9 in The Foreigners Act, 1946 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 74 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Foreigners Act, 1946 [Entire Act]
Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union Of India & Anr on 12 July, 2005
[9.] While the petitioner was leading a happy married life, suddenly a reference was made
by the Superintendent of Police (B), Barpeta on 02.01.2003 against her under the Illegal
Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act,1983 (IMDT Act). The Act was however declared to
be unconstitutional by the Apex Court in Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India, reported in
(2005) 5 SCC 665. The pending reference was thereafter transferred to the Foreigners
Tribunal No.8th to be decided as per the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with the
Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964.
Board Of Control For Cricket, India & Anr vs Netaji Cricket Club & Ors on 10 January, 2005
In the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr. (supra), the Apex Court
in the given facts of that case opined that the entertaining of the review application by the
Page No.# 17/24
High Court cannot be said to be ex facie bad in law. Section 114 of the CPC empowers a
court to review its order if the conditions precedent laid down therein are satisfied. Order 47,
Rule 1 of the CPC provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review
would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or
when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is
necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. Sufficient reason
is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an Advocate. An
application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine " actus curiae
neminem gravabit", which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no-one. However, in
the present case, as already noticed in the preceding paragraphs, the petitioner in the review
petition has failed to show that any of the three conditions set out in Order 47 Rule 1 are
attracted. In other words, the petitioner apart from reiterating the stand taken by her in the
earlier proceeding has failed to point out any error or mistake which is apparent on the face
of the record. Having failed to show that any of the pre-condition set out in Order 47 Rule 1
CPC exist, the authority relied upon cannot render any assistance to her case.
[18.]
Puthiavinayagam Pillai vs Sivasankaran Pillai on 18 September, 1996
The case of Puthiavinayagam Pillai (supra)
decided by the Madras High Court has also been relied upon to show that the importance of
documentary evidence over oral evidence when both are available. In the present case, even
if the same is to be accepted, there is no corroboration between the evidence led by the
petitioner and her witness. The petitioner did not mention in her pleadings and oral evidence
that she has a brother i.e., witness No.2. Therefore, the authority relied upon cannot be
applied to the case of the petitioner.