TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OF 2013 IN T. C. (C) NO. 101 OF 2012 - - X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered the various judgments cited by them, which include judgments cited by the non-applicants on the scope of review in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Others (2013) 8 SCC 320, Union of India vs. Namit Sharma (2013) 10 SCC 359 and Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar and others (1987) 1 SCC 288. After giving our thoughtful and due consideration, we are of the view that the judgment delivered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the re- hearing of the case, dictate the direction of the re-hearing and such direction, whether of binding or of persuasive value, would conceivably in most cases adversely affect the losing party at the re-hearing of the case. We are therefore of the view that the Review Bench in the present case could not be faulted for not giving reasons for allowing the Review Petition and directing re-heari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|