TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to correction of an error apparent on the face of the record and does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. The Court found no such apparent error in the record. The request to have the earlier Division Bench judgment considered was left to the appellate forum in the appeal arising from the impugned order.
Conclusion: No ground for review was made out, and the review petition was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
