9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 document is being placed on record along with the review petition. It thus appears to me that I cannot examine the claim under Section 114 of the CPC as it would involve a detailed factual investigation which is beyond the scope of Section 114. - Decided agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ida, which was allotted to the company and not to the partnership business 3. It is submitted on behalf of the review petitioner that the aforesaid property was not allotted to the company as recorded in the judgment, but was allotted to respondent Nos.2 3 and in so far as this Court records to the contrary, there is a mistake which has crept into the judgment and accordingly the same should be reviewed. 4. The other mistake pointed out in the judgment is that several authorities were cited on behalf of the review petitioner which have been referred to at the end of paragraph 12 of the judgment, in support of the proposition that Section 108 of the Companies Act is mandatory in nature, but no finding has been recorded by this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e family settlement but was allowed to respondent Nos.2 3 is only the thin edge of the wedge sought to be introduced in the review petition; the broader proposition sought to be made out is that this Court was not justified in holding that the said property was part of the family arranagement which was continued to be run by the father of the appellant, who was separated from the partnership business, at the said premises in the name of the company. In other words what is sought to be pointed out is that the property was never the subject matter of the family settlement so that it can be said to have been allowed to the father of the appellant and thereafter on the transfer of the shares of the company which owned the property, to the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 114 of the CPC as it would involve a detailed factual investigation which is beyond the scope of Section 114. 7. As regards the other point, namely, whether this Court committed an error in not considering the judgments cited by the review petitioner in support of the contention that Section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956 is mandatory in nature, as rightly pointed out on behalf of the respondent, the judgment of this Court is premised on the validity of a family arrangement and the acquiescence or acceptance thereof to the arrangement by the parties thereto without standing on technicalities. It was because of this reason that this Court found it not necessary to refer the authorities cited by the review petitioner. 8. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
