https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450786 Review jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure does not permit re-argument of matters already decided or correction of conclusions merely because a party disagrees with them. The alleged factual mistake about the date of communication did not affect the substantive findings, and no new material or error apparent on the face of the record was shown. The Madras HC therefore treated the review as a disguised appeal and declined interference with the earlier order. en-us Tue, 20 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450786 Review jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure does not permit re-argument of matters already decided or correction of conclusions merely because a party disagrees with them. The alleged factual mistake about the date of communication did not affect the substantive findings, and no new material or error apparent on the face of the record was shown. The Madras HC therefore treated the review as a disguised appeal and declined interference with the earlier order. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 20 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450786