Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI
NSL Textiles Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks review based on non-compliance with payment policies. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. government contends existing disbursements and challenges interest claims. (Para 4 , 7) |
| 3. court directs payment based on committee recommendations. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. review procedures defined under section 114 and order 47 rule 1 cpc. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. errors must be apparent; review not a rehearing. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. no error apparent; conduct of petitioner questioned. (Para 16 , 21 , 26) |
| 7. review petition dismissed; no costs. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
ORDER :
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Ranga Pujitha Gorantla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C. to review the order, dated 29.08.2023, in W.P.No.18644 of 2022.
3. The above writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:
“to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus,
(i) Declaring the inaction of Respondents in complying with the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 2005-2010 and Industrial Investment Promotion Poli
Review petitions under CPC are restricted to errors apparent on the record; disagreement with an earlier order does not justify a review.
The court reinforced that review petitions are not an opportunity to re-argue cases or appeal decisions already made unless clear, patent errors exist.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the review process cannot be used to re-open settled issues or seek re-hearing of the original petition. It also emphasizes the limited scope ....
A review petition may be maintained only upon discovery of new evidence or manifest errors; it cannot serve as an appeal to reconsider resolved issues.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to condone the delay in submission of the application for interest subsidy based on the sufficiency of cause shown by the pe....
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
