SATYA BRATA SINHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS review application has been filed for review of our judgment dated 6th April, 1999, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the applicant herein was dismissed.

( 2 ) MR. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the applicant, inter alia, submitted that there exists an error apparent on the face of the records necessitating review of the said judgment and order, in view of the fact that this Court has failed to take notice of the fact that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice, alternative remedy cannot be said to be a bar. The learned Counsel in support of his contention has relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court of India, namely, Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U. P.), reported in AIR 1987 SC 2186 : (1987 Lab IC 1901); M/s. Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar, reported in AIR 1969 SC 556 and also in AIR 1961 SC 1506 and in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai reported in 1998 (8) SCC 1 : AIR 1999 SC 22.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel as in view of the aforementioned decisions of the Apex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document