https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199887 A review petition may be entertained where counsel's mistake led to omission of a material statutory provision from the Court's notice, because that can constitute an error apparent on the face of the record; the petitions were therefore maintainable. The Andhra Pradesh High Court also held that the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1953, as adopted in Andhra Pradesh, was unconstitutional in so far as it reduced interest to 4% for acquisitions for the Central Government, because the differential rate lacked intelligible differentia and rational nexus and was discriminatory under Article 14. The amendment was struck down and compensation interest remained governed by the earlier higher rate. en-us Wed, 23 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:19:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199887 A review petition may be entertained where counsel's mistake led to omission of a material statutory provision from the Court's notice, because that can constitute an error apparent on the face of the record; the petitions were therefore maintainable. The Andhra Pradesh High Court also held that the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1953, as adopted in Andhra Pradesh, was unconstitutional in so far as it reduced interest to 4% for acquisitions for the Central Government, because the differential rate lacked intelligible differentia and rational nexus and was discriminatory under Article 14. The amendment was struck down and compensation interest remained governed by the earlier higher rate. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 23 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199887