Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Main points and insights:
Analysis and conclusion:
References:- ["THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE, CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED vs SMT. MAHADEVAMMA - Karnataka"]- ["DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER vs RAISINGBHAI ATIABHAI VASAVA(DECEASED) - Gujarat"]- ["RAMJAN ALI and 3 ORS vs MUSSTT. AMINA KHATUN and 2 ORS - Gauhati"]- ["SMT KAMLA DEVI AGARWAL and 2 ORS vs ANIL AGARWAL and ANR - Gauhati"]- ["SMT KAMLA DEVI AGARWAL and 2 ORS vs ANIL AGARWAL and ANR - Gauhati"]- ["MD. BAJER ALI vs THE UNION OF INDIA - Gauhati"]
In the complex landscape of Indian judiciary, litigants often grapple with procedural nuances, especially when seeking to revisit a court's decision. One common query arises: Is LCR required for a Review hearing? LCR, which can stand for Letter of Certification, Letter of Causality, Lower Court Record, or Labour Court Reference depending on context, is frequently misunderstood as a mandatory document. This post demystifies the requirement (or lack thereof) based on established legal principles, Supreme Court Rules, and judicial precedents. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
A review hearing is not an appeal in disguise but a limited remedy to correct errors apparent on the face of the record. Governed primarily by Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for civil matters and Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, it allows the same court or judges to reconsider their judgment if there's a glaring mistake, discovery of new evidence, or other exceptional grounds.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that review is an exceptional remedy, not a routine rehearing. As held in key judgments, review is not an appeal and must be based on errors apparent on the record Ram Chandra Singh VS Savitri Devi - 2004 5 Supreme 705COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION VS ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 881P. N. Easwara Iyer VS Registrar, Supreme Court Of India - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 50.
The primary question—Is LCR required for a Review hearing?—finds a clear answer in the rules: No, it is not explicitly required. The focus is on demonstrating an error apparent on the face of the record, not on submitting ancillary documents like an LCR.
Under Order XL, Rule 3, review applications are circulated among the same judges who delivered the original judgment (unless impractical). There's no oral hearing unless a prima facie error is shown, and certainly no precondition of an LCR. Courts reject applications disguised as clarifications or modifications if they seek substantive review without following this procedure Ram Chandra Singh VS Savitri Devi - 2004 5 Supreme 705COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION VS ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 881P. N. Easwara Iyer VS Registrar, Supreme Court Of India - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 50.
The rules prescribe:- Filing within 30 days (civil) or as specified.- Strict adherence to showing error apparent.- Circulation in chambers, not open court initially.
No provision mandates a Letter of Certification/Letter of Causality (LCR) as a prerequisite. Instead, the application must stand on its merits, supported by the record.
Indian courts have consistently upheld this stance:- Review not by circulation bypass: Applications styled as clarification or modification but amounting to review are dismissed. The process involves only the original judges, with no LCR mention Ram Chandra Singh VS Savitri Devi - 2004 5 Supreme 705COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION VS ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 881P. N. Easwara Iyer VS Registrar, Supreme Court Of India - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 50.- In Ram Chandra Singh VS Savitri Devi - 2004 5 Supreme 705, the court clarified: The review process is governed by Order XL... and are not to be used as a substitute for appeal.
This aligns with broader principles under Section 114 and Order XLVII CPC, where review power is limited.
LCR often appears in case records but not as a review prerequisite. From various precedents:
In labour disputes, LCR refers to Labour Court Reference, e.g., Reference (LCJ) No. 370 of 1990 (Old Reference (LCR) EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (O & M) vs KANJIA MANSUKHLAL TRAMBAKLAL. Courts review it for burden of proof issues, but it's not filed for review initiation.
As Lower Court Record (LCR), it's requisitioned for perusal during hearings: Therefore, the LCR was perused... Let the LCR be sent back expeditiously SMT KAMLA DEVI AGARWAL and 2 ORS vs ANIL AGARWAL and ANR. Here, LCR aided review dismissal analysis, but wasn't required to file.
In criminal matters, under Section 482 CrPC, courts may call LCR: the Office Report... the LCR was called for under memo no. 7196 Cr. Ashok Kumar Lahiri VS State of West Bengal - 2011 Supreme(Cal) 832. Yet, inherent powers for review/recall focus on mistake of fact or failure of justice, not LCR submission.
Revenue tribunals echo: No jurisdiction for review without statutory power, e.g., Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal lacked it under relevant acts Nimba Bula Patil, @ Nimba Bula Bedse VS State of Maharashtra - 2010 Supreme(Bom) 1613. LCR references (like LCR.TRB.6/1986) denote case numbers, not certification letters.
Other instances show LCR as records called post-filing: This court called for the original LCR for perusal ITISHREE ROUT vs SARAT CH.SWAIN - 2023 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 9784, or in procedural notes NIMBA BHOLA PATIL vs THE STATE OF MAH. and OTHERS
These examples illustrate LCR as an internal court tool (often records), called when needed, but not a filing requirement for review petitions.
While no LCR is needed, exceptions include:- Disguised reviews: Rejected if bypassing circulation Ram Chandra Singh VS Savitri Devi - 2004 5 Supreme 705.- Tribunal-specific rules: E.g., Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Regulations require same member for review if available Shridhar Ramchandra Bhogale VS Dilip Bapu Pandit - 2020 Supreme(Bom) 655.- Delay condonation: Possible under Section 5 Limitation Act, but with costs Gurbachan Kaur Sehgal (Dead) Through Lr. vs Rakesh Kumar Sharma - 2025 Supreme(Del) 174.
Recommendations for filing a review:- Clearly demonstrate error apparent on the record.- Comply with Order XL Supreme Court Rules or Order XLVII CPC.- Avoid re-arguing merits— that's for appeal.- No LCR needed, but ensure record references are precise.- In tribunals, check specific statutes (e.g., no inherent review without conferral Nimba Bula Patil, @ Nimba Bula Bedse VS State of Maharashtra - 2010 Supreme(Bom) 1613).
For service-related reviews, focus on Order IX Rule 13 CPC proof ANUJ MALHOTRA VS SANJAY MALHOTRA - 2017 Supreme(Del) 1623, not LCR.
In conclusion, based on Supreme Court Rules and precedents, litigants can proceed without an LCR, focusing on procedural purity. For personalized guidance, engage a legal expert. Stay informed, file wisely.
#ReviewHearing #IndianLaw #LCR
She has submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were held in accordance with law, after giving full opportunity of hearing and thus, the judicial review of the Tribunal in such matters with regard to the interference of punishment is very limited. ... In the said decision, the Supreme Court has held that the judicial review by the Tribunal and the High Court is very limited and once the evidence has been accepted by the departmental authorities, in exercise of power of judicial review, the Tribunal and the High Court....
There is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 that the LCR were kept below along with the MSA while hearing the matter and the same is found in the order sheet. Apart from that, the reason assigned is that could not able to get the records. ... The said contention is totally false and in fact this Court had called for the LCR and the LCR was also put up at the time of passing the order dated 03.07.2023. ... There is a delay of 527 days in filing the review petitio....
It is submitted that review petition filed on 08.03.2016 was held not maintainable and the suit was already fixed for ex parte hearing on 10.03.2016, when the respondents No.1 and 2 had filed the evidence- on-affidavit of 4 (four) P.W.’s. ... The LCR also reveals that the counsel engaged jointly by the respondent no.3 and the petitioners/ appellants was absent on 23.02.2016, but then appeared on 04.03.2016 and he had also filed the review petition on 08.03.2016, but did not appear in the suit thereafter. ... It is submit....
It is required to be noted that the judicial review of the findings of the Labour Court becomes necessary when the Labour Court has wrongly placed burden of proof upon the employer instead of the workman to establish 240 days' working in preceding 12 months. ... 1.By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamnagar dated 24.07.1998 in Reference (LCJ) No. 370 of 1990 (Old Reference (LCR ... He, therefore, submitted that there is no breach of the provisions....
Therefore, the LCR was perused. In the LCR, the copy of order dated 09.08.2010 is found appended as Annexure-1 to the review petition being Misc.(J) Case No. 2/2011. The said order read as follows. ... Let the LCR be sent back expeditiously. ... (J) Case No. 2/2011 by which the review application was dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the proceeding of Misc. ... Resultantly, the Court is of the considered opinion that as the order dated 06.12.2010 was erroneous on facts, the review w....
Hence, this Court doesn't find any merit in the Review Petition. Consequently, the Review Application is dismissed. ... It was thereafter that a Review Petition has been preferred by the appellant only on 10th March 2022, and the solitary ground, which has been argued for pressing the review, is that the were issued to the respondents, and thereafter, during its pendency, the appellant, on 24th July 2019, had filed an Application No. 9664 of 2019 along with ... The consideration of the same wou....
In 1985 Cri L J 23 it has been held that in its inherent powers as provided in Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court can review or revise its judgement if such a judgement is pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party who is entitled to a hearing and that party is not at fault. ... It also appears from the Office Report dated 10.09.2010 that as the petitioner has not deposited the cost of special messenger the LCR was called for under memo no. 7196 Cr. ... In those cases it has been set at rest that the High Court has....
According to the counsel for the petitioner, since the review application filed by respondent No.3 itself was not maintainable, as a consequences, the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in appeal No. LCR.TRB. 6 of 1986 dated 8.6.1987 is required to be quashed and set aside. ... The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.3.1991, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay camp at Dhule in Review application being LRC.TRB C 1 of 1988 (LCR. TRB.6 of 1986) and LRC....
In course of hearing in the present review petition, no such document could also be produced by the claimants to reveal any further expenses incurred by the injured towards ancillary charges and expenses. ... The original LCR be returned forthwith. 10. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. ... This court called for the original LCR for perusal. As seen from the documents produced on record, separate medicine bills were produced by the injured in course of his examination a....
LCR.TRB. 6 of 1986 dated 8.6.1987 is required to be quashed and set aside. ... application being LRC.TRB C 1 of 1988 (LCR. ... C 1 of 1988/LCR.TRB 6 of 1986 and also filed an appeal inherent power of review. ... LRC/TRB. 6 of 86 and submitted that there is no provisions under the Act to entertain the review application by the div id
CM APPLs. 15061/2024& 38006/2024 (permission to file additional documents on record) 11. Let both the parties file brief written submissions not exceeding five pages [with reference to the PDF page number of the digital record of the Court] along with relevant judgments [with an index of the specific paragraphs of the said decision and the corresponding proposition of law, to be relied on] within four weeks with an advance copy supplied to the opposite party at least a week in advance before the next date of hearing. 14. Present applications have been filed by the appellant seeking permissio....
Where a single member or the members of a bench or one of such members, who decided the case or made the order, a review of which is applied for, continues or continue to be a member or members of the Tribunal at the time when the application for such review is to be heard, such member or a bench consisting of such member or members, as the case may be, shall hear the application and o other member or bench shall hear the same." At the very find outset, I would like to refer to the mandatory provisions as laid down under the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Regulations, 2013 for dealing with Rev....
This application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.’ 13. During the course of hearing, LCR was requisitioned. Full opportunity was given to learned counsel for the petitioner to show from the record that at any point of time the defendant was served.
Else, the law is very clear that review is not a re-hearing. Else, the law is very clear that review is not a re-hearing. The pleas sought to be taken by the defendant no.1/review applicant BSES RPL are legal pleas and which require a foundation in the pleadings and which admittedly did not exist. That was held to be the province of a Court of appeal. 15. Supreme Court in Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (1995) 1 SCC 170 held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII ....
It is, therefore, obvious that at the stage when review application is being considered under subsection (3) the aggrieved party alone needs to be given a hearing to find out whether a case for review is made out or not. Proviso to subsection (4) then stipulates that such review shall not be granted without previous notice to all parties before the authority. If, according to the authority, no such case is made out there is no question of proceeding further to hear all other parties, as contemplated by proviso (1) of subsection (4) thereof.”
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
