9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be ground for review - Decided against the petitioner / revenue. - R.P. No. 641 of 2014 in W.A. No. 694 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 13-10-2014 - T.R. Ramachandran Nair and P.V. Asha, JJ. Shri John Varghese, Senior SC, for the Petitioner. Shri Aswin Gopakumar, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : P.V. Asha, J.]. - Appellants in the appeal have filed this Review Petition on the ground that two contentions raised by them in the Writ Appeal were not considered by this Court, while dismissing the appeal filed by them. The said 2 contentions are as follows : (i) The assayer has certified that the purity of the gold chain is 99.5%. Annexure I of Appendix E of the Baggage Rules, 1998 deals with gold or silver in any form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the term gold is not defined under the Customs Act. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the Review Petition contending that the judgment was rendered after considering all the contentions on merits; what is in effect sought is a rehearing on merits and there is absolutely no ground for a review of the judgment. 4. We have considered the rival contentions raised on either side. We find that the judgment was rendered by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench after considering all the contentions raised by the petitioners herein elaborately on merits, with reference to the contents of Ext.P3 order which was impugned as well as all the contentions raised in the pleadings and arguments. The judgments supra wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e do not find any satisfactory reason which calls for a review of the judgment. We are unable to find any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reasons or circumstances, which warrants a review of the judgment. 6. It is settled law that even an erroneous decision cannot be ground for review, [see Subramanian Swamy v. State of T.N. (2014) 5 SCC 75, Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Bani (2006) 4 SCC 78, Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury AIR 1995 SC 455, Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma AIR 1979 SC 1047, etc.]. 7. We do not find that the contentions raised by the review petitioners relying on the judgments supra help him in any manner, by way of seeking a review of the judgment. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
