SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1089

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER – Appellant
Versus
CHANDRIKA.K – Respondent


Advocates:
SHRI.S.PRASANTH, SRI M GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SRI NIKHIL SHANKAR

ORDER

This Review Petition is preferred seeking review of the judgment dated

20.01.2020 in W.P.(C) No.30210 of 2019.

2. I have heard Sri. S.Prasanth, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and Sri. M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned Standing Counsel.

3. It is by now settled that review of a judgment is permitted only when it is shown that the judgment suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record.

4. The contention advanced by the petitioner while seeking review of the judgment, is that though the challenge raised by the EPFO to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sasikumar P. V. Union of India and Ors1. was repelled by the Apex Court in SLP(C) No.8658-8659 of 2019, a review petition filed against the judgment was entertained by the Apex Court and the same is pending. It is also submitted that the Central Government has also preferred an appeal and the same is pending. It is further submitted that their Lordships of the Division Bench in the judgment dated 21.12.2020 in W.A.No.944/2020 had expressed doubts about the

1 [ILR 2019 (1) Ker. 614]

correctness of Sasikumar (supra). According to the petitioner, as this Court in the judgment under Review

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top