https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176588 Review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to discovery of new and important matter despite due diligence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other analogous sufficient reason; it cannot be used to reargue the case or seek a rehearing. Applying that standard, the Court held that no reviewable error was shown and the review was not maintainable. It also held that a grant made under a special Nautor land allotment scheme remained governed by that scheme, so the Government Grants Act did not override it. A fresh contention based on Purshotam, not raised earlier, was also not entertainable in review. en-us Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Dec 2015 09:31:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176588 Review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to discovery of new and important matter despite due diligence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other analogous sufficient reason; it cannot be used to reargue the case or seek a rehearing. Applying that standard, the Court held that no reviewable error was shown and the review was not maintainable. It also held that a grant made under a special Nautor land allotment scheme remained governed by that scheme, so the Government Grants Act did not override it. A fresh contention based on Purshotam, not raised earlier, was also not entertainable in review. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176588