Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Case

    Uploaded by

    Ankita Chaurasiya
    10 views1 page
    The Supreme Court found the order allowing a review application to be cryptic, non-reasoned, and non-speaking as it did not mention what error on the record warranted interference. The court noted that review jurisdiction can only be exercised if there is an error on the face of the record, and that when exercising this power, the court must first identify an apparent error necessitating review.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court found the order allowing a review application to be cryptic, non-reasoned, and non-speaking as it did not mention what error on the record warranted interference. The court noted that review jurisdiction can only be exercised if there is an error on the face of the record, and that when exercising this power, the court must first identify an apparent error necessitating review.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    10 views1 page

    Case

    Uploaded by

    Ankita Chaurasiya
    The Supreme Court found the order allowing a review application to be cryptic, non-reasoned, and non-speaking as it did not mention what error on the record warranted interference. The court noted that review jurisdiction can only be exercised if there is an error on the face of the record, and that when exercising this power, the court must first identify an apparent error necessitating review.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Ratan Lal Patel vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya and Ors.

    – (Supreme Court)MANU/SC/0345/2022

    The impugned order allowing the review application is a cryptic, non- reasoned and non-speaking order. Nothing
    has been mentioned as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record which called for interference. It
    cannot be disputed that the review jurisdiction can be exercised only in a case where it is found that there is an error
    apparent on the face of the record and not otherwise. Therefore, while exercising the review jurisdiction, the Court
    has to first satisfy itself on any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for exercise of the review
    jurisdiction.

    Bankey Bihari Goyal Vs. Ambrane India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT
    New Delhi,

    You might also like