TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record so as to justify review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013.
Analysis: The application for oral hearing was rejected. On perusal of the review petitions, the Court found no error apparent on the face of the record and held that the requirements for invoking review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 were not satisfied.
Conclusion: No case for review was made out and the review petitions were liable to be dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
