https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461304 Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to newly discovered material, an error apparent on the record, or a comparable sufficient reason; it cannot reopen issues already decided or replace an appellate challenge. A remand direction was not shown to have been made without notice, and no prejudice established a breach of natural justice. Reliance on uncited authorities or an alleged incorrect distinction of precedent did not disclose a patent error, particularly where the precedent had been addressed. Dearness allowance was treated as a legally enforceable and therefore justiciable entitlement, so mandamus remained available on the stated facts. The review grounds were rejected and the earlier judgment remained undisturbed. en-us Thu, 07 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 May 2026 13:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461304 Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to newly discovered material, an error apparent on the record, or a comparable sufficient reason; it cannot reopen issues already decided or replace an appellate challenge. A remand direction was not shown to have been made without notice, and no prejudice established a breach of natural justice. Reliance on uncited authorities or an alleged incorrect distinction of precedent did not disclose a patent error, particularly where the precedent had been addressed. Dearness allowance was treated as a legally enforceable and therefore justiciable entitlement, so mandamus remained available on the stated facts. The review grounds were rejected and the earlier judgment remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 07 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461304