Special Leave Petitions dismissed; approvals under section 153D invalid for lack of application of mind; section 292B inapplicable SC dismissed the Special Leave Petitions challenging approvals under section 153D, holding the Tribunal was correct that the approving authority failed to ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Special Leave Petitions dismissed; approvals under section 153D invalid for lack of application of mind; section 292B inapplicable
SC dismissed the Special Leave Petitions challenging approvals under section 153D, holding the Tribunal was correct that the approving authority failed to apply its mind when granting approval and followed the HC's finding that the approvals were issued without examining assessment or search material. The Court agreed the defect was not a trivial irregularity curable under section 292B and, in view of the cases' peculiar facts, declined to interfere. Pending applications are disposed of.
Issues: Dismissal of Special Leave Petitions
In the present judgment, the Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta, considered the issue of dismissing Special Leave Petitions after hearing the counsel. The Court, after condoning the delay and taking into account the peculiar facts of the cases, decided not to interfere in the matters, leading to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions. Additionally, the Court ordered that pending applications shall stand disposed of.
This judgment reflects the Court's exercise of discretion in deciding not to interfere in the matters at hand, based on the specific circumstances presented before them. The Court's decision to dismiss the Special Leave Petitions underscores the importance of considering the unique facts and context of each case before making a determination. The order to dispose of pending applications further indicates the Court's intention to bring closure to related matters in a comprehensive manner. Overall, the judgment highlights the Court's adherence to principles of judicial discretion and case-specific evaluation in rendering its decision.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.