2014 (4) TMI 801

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....16 of the impugned judgment, there is a reference to a letter dated 31.12.1993 written jointly by the review petitioner (appellant in the appeal) and his father Mr. S.N. Sood to the Noida authority. The sentence in the said paragraph runs as follows: - "It is not denied by him that he was a signatory to the letter dated 31.12.1993 written jointly by him and his father S.N. Sud to the Noida authority, under which he withdrew his rights in the company which was allotted the premises at G-58, Sector 6, Noida" 2. There is another sentence in the same paragraph at page 19 of the judgment in which also there is a reference to the property at G-58, Sector-6, Noida. The entire sentence is as follows: - "Moreover, the letter stated that S.N. Sud ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cation. So far as the second point raised by the review petitioner is concerned, it is contended that the basis of the judgment of this Court being the unassailability of the family arrangement there is no error of the Court in not deeming it necessary to deal with the point relating to Section 108 raised by the appellant, that too after a period of 16-17 years during which he also acted upon the terms of the settlement, and thus there was no mistake committed by this Court if the authorities cited by the review petitioner in support of the proposition that Section 108 of the Companies Act is mandatory in nature was not decided; as that point is subsumed by the proposition upon which the judgment of this Court is premised. 6. The first poi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peal proceedings, but only with the review petition, can be entertained and it can be held that the property could not have been the subject matter of the family arrangement is a question which requires to be examined in detail and, therefore, cannot be gone into while exercising the power of review. The error must be manifest on the face of the judgment and should be so clear that no Court would permit such an error or mistake to remain on record. The lease document dated 27.07.1982 admittedly was not before the Court at the time when the appeal was decided. The review petitioner himself had accepted the family settlement for a period of 15 to 16 years and did not raise any question. The review petition itself states that the said lease do....