Narendra Sharma

Not considering the Law laid down by Supreme Court will amount to an error apparent on face of record [2004(2) MPLJ 492 (498 para 10)] and is a ground for Review. The term ‘Sufficient reason’ is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court [AIR 2005 Supreme Court 592 (605-para 88-90)]. The objective of Review is to do away with quickly the Injustice which may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine “actus curie neminem gravabit’ [AIR 2005 Supreme Court 592 (605-para 88-90)] which means that no act of court should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of the courts to see that if a person is harmed by mistake of the court, he should be restored quickly to the position he would have occupied but for the mistake. Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated “basic philosophy is universal acceptance of human fallibility” [1993 Supp (4) SCC 595 (619-para 19)].

Note: The views expressed are my personal and a view point only.

(Author:  Author can be reached at Mobile-9229574214, E-mail: [email protected])

Click Here to Read Other Articles of the Author

More Under Corporate Law


  1. Nisban says:

    Well, the IT department and the omniscient ITAT do not bother about this, as long as the cash laws of the RBI are still there and not demonetized. These decisions are to be cited at the peril of the taxpayer and his counsel or CA. To be very frank, these lowlifes have no time or inclination to read or follow these uncomfortable decisions.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

June 2021