Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2024 (5) TMI 1451 - HC - Indian LawsScope of review jurisdiction - error apparent on the face of the record - suppression of material fact in relating to the involvement of the respondents in the criminal cases by itself would incur the disqualification to be appointed to the post of constable and RSI - HELD THAT - In PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS VERSUS SUMITRI DEVI AND OTHERS 1997 (10) TMI 369 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Apex Court observed that an error that is not self-evident and the one that has to be detected by the process of reasoning cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review. In LILY THOMAS ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2000 (5) TMI 1045 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Apex Court held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. In ARIBAM TULESHWAR SHARMA VERSUS ARIBAM PISHAK SHARMA 1979 (1) TMI 228 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Apex Court observed that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 pulpable errors committed by it. But there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. 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. In KAMLESH VERMA VERSUS MAYAWATI ORS. 2013 (8) TMI 912 - SUPREME COURT after discussing various decisions on the scope of review jurisdiction the Hon ble Apex Court summarized the principles for exercise of the review jurisdiction also laying down when the review would be maintainable and when not. With respect to the scope of review it has repeatedly been held that in the exercise of review jurisdiction neither the Court can sit in appeal nor it is open for review petitioner to reagitate and reargue the questions which had already been addressed and decided by the writ Court. It is not permissible to allow the review petition to be re-heard and decide as an appeal in disguise. The present review petitions are an effort in the nature of second commencement of re-hearing of writ petitions which is impermissible. The judgments under review do not suffer from any apparent error of law - All the Review Petitions are dismissed.
|