Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Sanjay Kumar Agarwal VS State Tax Officer...
2023 7 Supreme 392 : A civil court can review its own order on the ground of omission to take note of a precedent only if the omission constitutes a ''''glaring case'''' or ''''obtrusive omission''''—that is, where there has been an obvious inadvertence or oversight in failing to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority that runs counter to the reasoning and result reached in the judgment. This is an exception to the general rule that a decision once rendered must bind like cases, and such review is permissible only in exceptional instances where the error is manifest and not merely a difference of opinion or a passing reference by a coordinate bench. The mere fact that a co-ordinate bench has made a passing reference to the impugned judgment or has expressed a different view on a question of law does not constitute a ground for review, as a coordinate bench cannot comment upon the judgment of another coordinate bench of equal strength. The proper course in such cases is to refer the matter to a larger bench for authoritative decision to avoid uncertainty in the law.Checking relevance for State of Himachal Pradesh VS Nishant Sareen...
Checking relevance for RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS VINOD KUMAR RAWAT...
2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641 : The legal documents establish that a civil court cannot review its own order on the ground of omission to take note of a precedent while passing the earlier order. This is because such an omission, if it constitutes an erroneous decision on merits, does not amount to an ''''error apparent on the face of the record'''' under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a mere erroneous decision—such as failing to consider a binding precedent—is not sufficient for review. As stated in multiple precedents, including T.C. Basappa vs. T.Nagappa (AIR 1954 SC 440) and Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque (AIR 1955 SC 233), an error must be ''''patent'''' or ''''manifest on the face of the record'''' and not require detailed reasoning to detect. The review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to correct errors in judgment or legal reasoning. In particular, the judgment in State of West Bengal and Others vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 612 clarifies that an order cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or because a different view could have been taken. Therefore, the omission to consider a precedent, unless it amounts to a failure to apply a jurisdictional provision or a glaring omission that is self-evident from the record, does not justify review.Checking relevance for Employees State Insurance Corporation VS All India I. T. D. C. Employees Union...
Checking relevance for State of West Bengal VS Kamal Sengupta...
Checking relevance for Govt. of NCT of Delhi through its Secretary VS K. L. Rathi Steels Limited...
Checking relevance for VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY WALIA VS STATE OF PUNJAB...
Checking relevance for Sree Metaliks Ltd. vs Union of India...
2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 26 : Yes, a civil court can review its own order on the ground of omission to take note of a binding precedent or relevant statute, if such omission constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. The court held that a glaring omission to apply a relevant statute or a clear disregard of a binding authority can manifest as an error apparent, justifying review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This is because such an error strikes at the very basis of the judgment and is self-evident without requiring elaborate reasoning or re-argument.Checking relevance for Ratul Puri VS Bank of Baroda Through General Manager...
Checking relevance for P. Shobha Rani VS State of Andhra Pradesh...
Checking relevance for Jayashree Jayanth VS N. Krishnaswamy...
2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 1023 : The court held that a review cannot be granted merely because a different view could have been taken on a point of law, and that an erroneous decision cannot be corrected in the guise of review. Specifically, the court emphasized that the power of review under Order 47 of the CPC cannot be used to reargue the case or correct an erroneous view on law, as this would amount to an appeal in disguise. The court further clarified that the fact that a decision on a question of law has been reversed or modified by a subsequent decision of a superior court shall not be a ground for review. This establishes that omission to take note of a precedent—especially if it arose after the original order—cannot constitute a valid ground for review, as the review power is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to correct legal errors that require reasoning or argument.Checking relevance for Mantu Kumar S/o Late Ramchandra Singh VS Union of India through the Home Secretary, New Delhi...
Mantu Kumar S/o Late Ramchandra Singh VS Union of India through the Home Secretary, New Delhi - Patna (2023)
: The civil court can review its own order on the ground of omission to take note of a precedent only if such omission constitutes a ''''mistake or error apparent on the face of the record'''' or amounts to a ''''palpable wrong'''' that is manifest on the face of the record without requiring extensive reasoning. According to the Supreme Court in S. Bagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission (2009) 10 SCC 464, an error apparent on the face of the record must be one that strikes the court on mere perusal of the record and does not require a process of reasoning or interpretation. In Shanti Conductors Private Limited vs. Assam State Electricity Board (2020) 2 SCC 677, the Court emphasized that an error which is not self-evident and requires reasoning cannot be considered ''''apparent on the face of the record.'''' Therefore, a mere omission to consider a precedent, unless it is so glaring and obvious that it amounts to a patent error, does not constitute a valid ground for review. The review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-examine the merits of the decision or to substitute the court''''s view on legal interpretation.
