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
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 petitioner’s view, creates the consumer confused and unjustly capitalizes on the good will associated with “KRISHAN”. It is contended that this Court erroneously presumed that the defendant/respondent’s trademark was registered, a premise which vitiates the decision, while simultaneously setting aside the interim reliefs that were necessary to prevent irreparable loss.
4. In a subsequent Special Leave Petition vide SLP(C) No.7458/2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, liberty was granted to the petitioner to seek recall of the im
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.
Review Petition – Jurisdiction of High Court while exercising review cannot be exercised as an inherit power nor as Appellate Court be exercised in guise of power of review – Power of review may be e....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of review is not an inherent power and is subject to the limitations of Section 114 and Order-47, Rule-1 of CPC. A review can only b....
(1) Review jurisdiction – Application for review would also lie if order has been passed on account of some mistake—Review court does not sit in appeal over its own order—Rehearing of matter is imper....
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
