SOUMEN SEN, SIDDHARTHA ROY CHOWDHURY
Kshitish Bardhan Chunilal Nath – Appellant
Versus
Tata Chemicals – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The Court: This memorandum of review is a manifestation of displeasure of the applicants over the judgement passed in APO No.128 of 2021 together with APO No.129 of 2021 by which the appeals in application being APO No.128 of 2021 with IA GA No.1 of 2021 and APO No.129 of 2021 with IA GA No.1 of 2021 were allowed and consequent thereupon interim order passed on July 17, 2019 was restored and the interim order passed at the time of admission of appeal on 30th April, 2021 was confirmed.
2. It is contended that certain material facts, though recorded in the judgement, might not have been considered by the Hon’ble Court while passing the judgement under review and such non-consideration of material facts warrants the review of the judgement in order to maintain the judicial propriety. It is further contended that this Court while considering the merit of the appeal did not appreciate the fact that the ledger of the applicant was used to be maintained by the vendor/TCL, the opposite party herein which perhaps escaped the attention of this Court and as such it was observed:- “This is in fact a claim for an unpaid vendor for the remaining part of the consideration amount receiva
Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhuri case reported in 1995(1) SCC 170
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde vs. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale reported in AIR 1960 SC 137
Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors. reported in 1997(8) SCC 715
Barun Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal reported in 2012(2) CHN 617
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372
State of West Bengal and Others vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612
Patel Narshi Thakershi vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
Application for review of judgment - Powers of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor can an appellate power be exercised in guise of power of review. After holding this, Supreme court f....
The power of review is limited to correcting apparent errors on the record and cannot be used to rehash arguments or findings that have been previously settled.
Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised to rehear a case or correct an erroneous decision without evidence of an error apparent on the face of the record.
Review of a judgment requires an error apparent on the face of the record, not merely an error revealed through extensive reasoning.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.