Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the review applications were maintainable under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the grounds urged, and whether any direction could be issued in review in relation to the arbitration reference already made under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the disclosure requirement under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Analysis: Review is confined to the narrow grounds recognised under Order XLVII Rule 1 and cannot be used to re-open the merits, re-argue the case, or seek an appellate reappraisal of the earlier order. Mere liberty to file a review, granted on withdrawal of the special leave petition, did not create any substantive entitlement to have the earlier order altered in favour of the applicants. The earlier reference to arbitration had been made within the limited scope of Section 8, and the relief now sought was beyond the permissible ambit of review.
Conclusion: The grounds raised did not disclose any error apparent or other ground sufficient for review, and no direction could be granted in the exercise of review jurisdiction in relation to the earlier arbitration reference.