Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MALASRI NANDI
Debendra Jalewal, S/o. Onkarmal Jalewal – Appellant
Versus
Birendra Prasad, S/o. Late Prem Prasad Sah – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review application context (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments against setting aside trial court orders (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. respondent's counterarguments to review petition (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. court's observations regarding necessity of review (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. scope and limitations of review powers (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. clarification on the limits of the review process. (Para 32) |
| 7. judgment concluding the review petition (Para 33 , 34) |
ORDER :
Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. J.M.Konwar, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saraf, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. By filing an application under Order 47 Rule 1 R/W Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner has sought for review of the order dated 24.01.2025, passed by this Court in CRP (IO) 68/2024.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the review petitioner has been engaged in manufacturing and marketing ‘Green Matar Mixture’ through his company “KRISHAN”. The defendant/respondent used another trademark “KRISAAN” by merely altering a letter. In the peti
A review under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record, not re-evaluating cases, with no basis for changing decisions absent clear mistakes.
The court affirmed that a party must produce valid documentation of trade mark registration to claim ownership, and the power of review is limited to errors apparent on the record.
Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, not re-evaluating merits of the case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of review may only be exercised for specific reasons such as the discovery of new evidence, mistake, or error apparent on the face o....
The duty of the Court to rectify orders based on wrong assumptions of facts and the limited scope of review compared to an appeal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for errors to be apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason to justify review jurisdiction.
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
