https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465418 An application styled as one for clarification cannot be entertained when its substance is a review seeking rehearing and alteration of an earlier judgment. Review lies under Article 137 read with Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, and the form of the pleading cannot override its real object. A party may not bypass the prescribed review procedure by renaming the request as clarification or modification. In the absence of any apparent error on the record, the application was treated as an impermissible device and rejected as not maintainable. en-us Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 14:29:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465418 An application styled as one for clarification cannot be entertained when its substance is a review seeking rehearing and alteration of an earlier judgment. Review lies under Article 137 read with Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, and the form of the pleading cannot override its real object. A party may not bypass the prescribed review procedure by renaming the request as clarification or modification. In the absence of any apparent error on the record, the application was treated as an impermissible device and rejected as not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465418