https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174164 Review jurisdiction is confined to correction of an error apparent on the face of the record, and cannot be used to reargue the merits or substitute one possible interpretation for another. A delay in filing the review was condoned on the explanation offered, and the Union was heard in fairness. The Court corrected a clerical misquotation in the Expert Committee report by deleting the wrongly added lines, but held that this did not justify broader review because the earlier conclusion remained supportable. The challenge to the prior interpretation of Sections 11(2) and 11(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 was rejected. en-us Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Feb 2026 11:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174164 Review jurisdiction is confined to correction of an error apparent on the face of the record, and cannot be used to reargue the merits or substitute one possible interpretation for another. A delay in filing the review was condoned on the explanation offered, and the Union was heard in fairness. The Court corrected a clerical misquotation in the Expert Committee report by deleting the wrongly added lines, but held that this did not justify broader review because the earlier conclusion remained supportable. The challenge to the prior interpretation of Sections 11(2) and 11(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 was rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174164