Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Niraj Tete, S/o Benjamin Tete – Appellant
Versus
Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman, Government of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the review petitions (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for review by petitioners (Para 3) |
| 3. respondent's stance on the review (Para 5) |
| 4. scope of review under law (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. judicial principles on reviewing orders (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. grounds for exercising review power (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. clarifications on review limitations (Para 13 , 14) |
| 8. errors that qualify for review (Para 15 , 16) |
| 9. court's findings on the review reasons (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 10. decision on review petitions (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
Per se, Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Both the review petitions are arising out of common issue and the Civil Review No. 01 of 2025 depends upon the outcome of the Civil Review No. 74 of 2024, since the Judgment dated 14.08.2024 passed in the LPA No. 407 of 2024 which is being challenged in Civil Review No. 01 of 2025 was disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 08.11.2023 passed by this Court in LPA No.146 of 2019.Therefore, Civil Review No. 74 of 2024 is being taken into consideration first.
Civil Review No.74 of 2024
1. The instant civil review has been filed seeking review of the order dated 08.11.2023 passed in LPA No.146 of 2019 by this Court, wh
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
