https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309896 Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new matter, or other sufficient reason, and cannot be used to raise fresh grounds beyond the limited liberty granted after withdrawal of an appeal. On that basis, the review petition was not maintainable insofar as it sought to introduce matters not earlier dealt with. In addition, delay in refiling a Section 34 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be satisfactorily explained; where only part of the delay is accounted for and a substantial balance remains unexplained, a liberal approach is not warranted. The petition therefore failed for lack of maintainability and for failure to explain the refiling delay. en-us Mon, 25 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Sep 2023 21:27:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309896 Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new matter, or other sufficient reason, and cannot be used to raise fresh grounds beyond the limited liberty granted after withdrawal of an appeal. On that basis, the review petition was not maintainable insofar as it sought to introduce matters not earlier dealt with. In addition, delay in refiling a Section 34 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be satisfactorily explained; where only part of the delay is accounted for and a substantial balance remains unexplained, a liberal approach is not warranted. The petition therefore failed for lack of maintainability and for failure to explain the refiling delay. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 25 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309896