Review for error apparent turns on existing binding law; later contrary authority does not justify review, but ignored Supreme Court law may.
Review for error apparent on the face of the record depends on the record as it stood when judgment was rendered; a later Supreme Court or larger Bench decision taking a contrary view does not, by itself, create a reviewable apparent error. By contrast, omission to notice an existing binding Supreme Court ruling on the point applies the wrong law and is an obvious error apparent on the record. Failure to notice a binding High Court decision may amount to legal error, but it is not treated as an error apparent for review purposes. The distinction drawn is between later reversal of law, which does not justify review, and non-consideration of existing binding Supreme Court law, which does.
Issues: (i) Whether a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court or a larger Bench taking a different or contrary view on a point covered by the judgment under review amounts to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (ii) whether failure to notice an existing decision of the Supreme Court taking a different or contrary view on a point covered by the judgment amounts to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) whether failure to notice a binding decision of the High Court amounts to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
Issue (i): Whether a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court or a larger Bench taking a different or contrary view on a point covered by the judgment under review amounts to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
Analysis: Review lies to correct an error apparent on the face of the record as it stood when the judgment was rendered. A later decision showing that the earlier view was wrong does not mean that the original judgment contained an apparent error. The later declaration of law may expose an error in the reasoning, but it does not convert a right decision, when made, into one suffering from an apparent mistake. The statutory explanation to Order XLVII, Rule 1 reinforces that a subsequent reversal or modification of the legal position by a superior court is not by itself a ground for review.
Conclusion: No. A subsequent decision of the Supreme Court or a larger Bench taking a different or contrary view does not amount to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
Issue (ii): Whether failure to notice an existing decision of the Supreme Court taking a different or contrary view on a point covered by the judgment amounts to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
Analysis: A binding decision of the Supreme Court is the law declared under Article 141 and must be applied. If the court decides a question without noticing an existing Supreme Court ruling on that point, it applies the wrong law. That kind of omission is obvious from the record and does not require elaborate argument to detect. It therefore falls within the scope of error apparent on the face of the record.
Conclusion: Yes. Failure to take into consideration an existing decision of the Supreme Court taking a different or contrary view amounts to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
Issue (iii): Whether failure to notice a binding decision of the High Court amounts to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
Analysis: Although a High Court decision is binding within its territorial jurisdiction, it does not have the same status as the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 for purposes of identifying an apparent error in review. A judgment that ignores a binding High Court decision may be erroneous, but mere error of law is not enough for review unless it is apparent on the face of the record. The omission of a High Court ruling is therefore treated as a wrong exposition of law rather than an apparent error.
Conclusion: No. Failure to notice a binding decision of the High Court does not amount to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by drawing a distinction between subsequent contrary authority and an existing binding Supreme Court ruling, while excluding omission of a High Court ruling from reviewable apparent error.
Ratio Decidendi: Review for error apparent lies only where the record discloses a clear, existing legal mistake at the time of judgment; a later change in law or later contrary decision does not create such an error, but omission of an existing binding Supreme Court decision does.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
