TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
AI-powered research trained on the authentic TaxTMI database.
Launch AI Search →Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Binding precedent under Kasinka Trading principles in challenge to earlier judgment, leading to judgment set aside and appeals allowed.</h1> The dominant issue was whether the impugned judgment could stand in light of binding SC precedent on the applicable legal principles. Applying the ratio ... Application of binding precedent - reliance on principles in Kasinka Trading v. Union of India - setting aside a judgment - appeal allowed - costs-each party to bear their ownApplication of binding precedent - reliance on principles in Kasinka Trading v. Union of India - appeal allowed - setting aside a judgment - Whether the appeals should be allowed by applying the principles laid down in Kasinka Trading v. Union of India and the consequent fate of the judgment under appeal. - HELD THAT: - The Court permitted the appeals by applying the principles laid down in Kasinka Trading v. Union of India. On that basis the impugned judgment was set aside. The order records the application of the cited precedent as the determinative legal basis for allowing the appeals and reversing the judgment under appeal. [Paras 1]Appeals allowed; judgment under appeal set aside.Costs-each party to bear their own - Allocation of costs between the parties. - HELD THAT: - The Court directed that each party will bear their own costs, recording a neutral costs order concurrent with allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned judgment. [Paras 1]Each party to bear their own costs.Final Conclusion: The appeals are allowed by applying the principles of Kasinka Trading v. Union of India; the judgment under appeal is set aside and each party shall bear its own costs. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals 'in view of the principles laid down' in *Kasinka Trading v. Union of India* (1994 ECR 637 (SC)). On that basis, it set aside the judgment under appeal, treating the earlier Supreme Court precedent as controlling on the issues raised. The order reflects application of binding precedent rather than an independent reappraisal of facts or a detailed merits analysis: the outcome follows from the governing 'principles' already settled by the Court. The Court consequently overturned the impugned decision and directed that 'Each party will bear their own costs,' thereby disposing of the matter without awarding costs to either side.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
