Topic
Review jurisdiction under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows Indian courts to correct patent errors apparent on the face of the record, but not to reappreciate evidence or reargue merits.
The Madras HC upheld writ courts' review jurisdiction under Article 226 via HC Writ Rules, ruling that a proposed accused has no pre-FIR hearing right. It also held the State may withdraw a legally untenable review without breaching rule of law, bolstering prosecutorial discretion in PMLA and corruption matters.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a bank may not seize an employee’s terminal benefits to settle loan dues unless a specific statute or contract expressly permits it, quashing SBI’s review petition. The decision safeguards retirement benefits of bank employees and clarifies limits on contractual lien in employment contracts.
The Delhi High Court held that interest on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 runs from the date of dispossession and cannot be denied due to delay in filing amendment applications.
Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 does not empower the West Bengal State Consumer Commission to review orders passed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As a result, revision applications challenging such 1986 Act orders are dismissed, leaving consumers without a statutory review remedy under the newer law.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition, holding that an interlocutory injunction in a separate trademark dispute does not disqualify a bidder and that a change in shareholding does not erase the bidder’s earlier project experience required under the tender. This clarifies that eligibility is judged on substantive qualifications, not on unrelated litigation or post-tender ownership changes, impacting all participants in government procurements.
Bombay High Court reinforces judicial finality by dismissing CIDCO's review petition, holding that mere reliance on documents already part of the record does not constitute 'new evidence' under review jurisdiction. The ruling underscores that reopening settled land acquisition disputes without fresh material amounts to abuse of process, affecting government bodies and litigants in similar disputes.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that while review petitions cannot substitute appeals, they may adjust interest rates on pension arrears under equitable principles when the delay in payment arises from circumstances beyond the government body's control, such as pending criminal investigations. This sets a precedent for balancing fiscal responsibility with fair compensation to retirees facing unjustified delays due to external legal processes.
Bombay High Court dismisses review petition, holding that review jurisdiction cannot be used to introduce clauses or arguments not originally pleaded. The ruling reinforces judicial finality, preventing endless litigation by limiting review to apparent errors on record. Temporary workers and service law litigants must ensure all grounds are raised in initial proceedings.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that mental stress, without corroborative prima facie evidence, cannot justify condonation of delay in filing review petitions. The judgment reinforces strict compliance with the Limitation Act, impacting litigants seeking relief on grounds of emotional distress in matrimonial disputes.
The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that a review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is not maintainable merely to re-examine evidence or rehear arguments. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record, not re-litigating disputes.
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) clarified that a contingent contract under Section 32 of the Transfer of Property Act does not automatically become void if permission for transfer is denied due to the plaintiff's fault. The ruling underscores that contractual obligations persist unless the contingency is legally impossible, not merely due to one party's failure to comply.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the cause of action for seniority in government service emerges solely at the time of regularisation, not at the date of initial appointment or engagement. This clarifies a critical legal threshold for hundreds of daily wage and contractual employees seeking backdated seniority and promotional benefits, overturning dismissal on limitation grounds and mandating fresh adjudication under binding precedent.
MP High Court reaffirms that review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC cannot be used to reargue settled findings or introduce new claims without demonstrating due diligence. The ruling bars litigants from circumventing appellate finality by disguising fresh arguments as 'errors apparent on record'.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC can be invoked if a coordinate bench's order overlooks binding precedent, creating an 'error apparent on the face of the record'. The decision clarifies that such errors warrant recall of erroneous orders, ensuring judicial discipline and consistency in service law matters.
Allahabad HC rules that review petitions cannot be used to reargue merits after a final order, and denying ex-gratia compensation to similarly situated claimants amounts to arbitrary discrimination under Article 14. The judgment reinforces the limited scope of review jurisdiction while upholding constitutional equality in state welfare schemes.