Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
HARISH TANDON, CJ., MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Bridge & Roof Company (India) Limited, Kolkata – Appellant
Versus
Adarsh Noble Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review application details and grounds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. argument emphasis on confusion and patent error. (Para 4) |
| 3. principles of review jurisdiction. (Para 5) |
| 4. discovery of new documents and due diligence standards. (Para 6) |
| 5. contradictory arguments and litigant's stance. (Para 7) |
| 6. msmed act registration obligations. (Para 8) |
| 7. determination of applicability of provisions. (Para 9) |
| 8. final decision to dismiss review petition. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The review application is taken out by the unsuccessful litigant challenging the judgment/order dated 18th June, 2024 passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.1124 of 2022 taking multiple grounds, some of which were not argued at the time of the disposal of the appeal though claimed to have been taken and some are taken for the first time on the basis of discovery of new and important document subsequently unearthed by the petitioner.
3. The points argued in the review jurisdiction are summarized as under:
Secondly, the factum of registration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act” for short) was never communicated to the petitioner by the appellant/opposite party No.1
The court affirmed that review applications must demonstrate due diligence in presenting new evidence and cannot rehash issues previously settled unless a patent error is shown, reflecting the need f....
The court emphasized the limited scope of review power, the need for an error apparent on the face of the record, and the applicability of the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act to the ....
If any registration under the MSMED Act is obtained, the same will be prospective and would apply to supply of goods and services subsequent to registration but cannot operate retrospectively. Accord....
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
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.
The court ruled that petitions under Article 227 are not maintainable against awards under the MSMED Act, emphasizing the need to follow statutory remedies provided by the Act.
The registration under the MSMED Act, 2006 applies prospectively and not retrospectively, and the benefits of the Act do not apply if the registration is obtained subsequently to the agreement and th....
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
