TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portunity of being heard and present documents in support before A.O. is not agreed to. - Appeal No.93 of 2014, Appeal No.104 of 2014, Appeal No.180 of 2014, Appeal No.181 of 2014, Review Application No.1 of 2015 to Review Application No.4 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2015 - A.S. Lamba, J. For The Appellant : Ms. Chaitra Rao, Advocate i/b Juris Matrix For The Respondent : Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Rushin Kapadia, Advocate i/b K. Ashar Co. Advocate Per : A.S. Lamba 1. Review Applications (RAs) have been filed by the Applicants/Original Appellants, viz. Review Application No.1 of 2015 in Appeal No.93 of 2014, Review Application No.2 of 2015 in Appeal No.104 of 2014, Review Application No.3 of 2015 in Appeal N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/2014, it was felt that since documents now being produced before this Tribunal should have been produced before A.O., in response to SCN and proper course should have been to remand the matter to A.O. for reconsideration of same, on basis of reply of Appellant, but since Appellant had not requested for remand and had chosen not to appear before A.O. and had furnished no reply to SCN, although he was provided opportunity for same and hence there was no violation of principle of natural justice and hence Tribunal considered the matter in appeal and decided to uphold the decision of A.O., arrived at on basis of documents available and taken into consideration by A.O. 3. Respondent represented that review is possible only if there is mista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers vs. UOI (2000) 6 Supreme Court Case 224 that, The review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. Courts find that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error. 7. Ld. Counsel for Respondent argued that none of two tests, viz. error manifest on face of judgment or discovery of new facts, exi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
