Topic
A review petition in Indian law is a procedural remedy to correct a patent error apparent on the face of the record in a final judgment or order, as permitted under Order 47 of the CPC or Article 137 of the Constitution.
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 a gift deed between family members is not a 'transfer' under Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, barring eviction claims based on such deed. It also clarified that a review petition under Section 114 CPC lies only for errors apparent on the face of the record, affecting landlords and tenants in family-settlement disputes under rent control 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.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition after finding suppression of material facts regarding a pending civil suit, reinforcing the clean hands doctrine. The ruling underscores the necessity of full disclosure in writ jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has restored a service dispute writ petition after finding it was wrongly disposed of based on a Division Bench judgment subsequently stayed by the Supreme Court. This ruling reinforces that courts cannot rely on precedents under interim stay, ensuring litigants get a merits-based hearing and preventing procedural injustice in government employment cases.
Kerala High Court holds that once a miner avails the statutory reduction scheme under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, the penalty under Rule 108 cannot be waived. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with penalty provisions, impacting miners and state authorities in enforcement actions.
Kerala High Court clarifies that review petitions under the Civil Procedure Code must demonstrate an 'error apparent on the face of the record', not just a change in legal interpretation or subsequent judgments. The ruling reinforces that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting manifest errors, not re-litigating settled issues, impacting service law disputes involving retirement benefits and administrative orders.
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.
Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirms that review petitions under Article 226 require a clear error apparent on the record, and writ jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent statutory remedies like appeals under Section 100 CPC. The ruling underscores the limited scope of review petitions and the necessity of exhausting alternative remedies before invoking constitutional jurisdiction.
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.
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'.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a writ petition disposed of without affording the respondent an opportunity to file a reply violates natural justice and must be restored for a proper bi-parte hearing. This sets a critical precedent for administrative litigants facing summary disposals, ensuring procedural fairness even in high-volume court settings.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a review order that revoked a land sale permit without notice to affected parties, affirming that even quasi-judicial bodies must adhere to the foundational principles of audi alteram partem and reasoned decision-making. This ruling protects property rights of marginalized communities and sets a binding standard for administrative reviews across state revenue authorities.
MP High Court reaffirms that writ petitions under Article 226 cannot resolve disputed factual questions requiring witness examination or evidence. Parties must approach civil courts for adjudication, reinforcing the limited scope of writ jurisdiction in factual disputes.