TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Rejects Review Petition, Upholds Previous Ruling on Legal Interpretation Without Oral Hearing</h1> <h3>DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (BPU UNITY) & ORS. Versus KOKILABEN CHHAGANBHAI PATEL</h3> SC dismissed review petition, rejecting oral hearing despite condoning delay. Court disagreed with prior three-Judge Bench decision in Ganpati Dealcom ... Application for review of judgment - Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions - Attachment order passed u/s 24(3) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act HELD THAT:- We express our inability to agree with the observations made in Union of India vs. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (10) TMI 1120 - SC ORDER (LB)] which reads as under: “Where any other proceedings have been disposed of by relying on the judgment of this Court in Ganpati Dealcom Private Ltd (supra), liberty is granted to the aggrieved party to seek a review in view of the present judgment.” This is in view of an earlier judgment of K.L. Rathi Steels Limited [2024 (7) TMI 811 - SUPREME COURT]. This decision arose on a difference of opinion between a Bench of two Judges in the said case, the three-Judge Bench agreed with the view of the companion Judge (Nagarathna, J.) of the two Judge Bench and recorded its inability to be at ad idem with the Hon’ble Presiding Judge. This was on the basis of the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “Code”). In M/S GANPATI DEALCOM PVT LTD [2024 (10) TMI 1120 - SC ORDER (LB)] a three-Judge Bench of this Court has failed to notice the judgment of this Court in K.L. Rathi Steels Limited (supra) which is also of a co-equal strength and prior in time. Therefore, we decline to grant liberty to seek review in the present case. Hence, the Review Petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court, through Hon'ble Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih, dismissed the Review Petition, condoning delay but rejecting the application for oral hearing. The Court expressly disagreed with a prior three-Judge Bench decision in Union of India vs. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. that had granted liberty to seek review based on reliance on that judgment.The Court relied on an earlier three-Judge Bench ruling in Government of NCT of Delhi vs. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited [(2024) 7 SCC 315], which interpreted the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This provision clarifies that 'The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.'Since the Ganpati Dealcom Bench failed to consider the binding and prior decision in K.L. Rathi Steels Limited, the present Bench declined to grant liberty for review. The Review Petition was therefore dismissed, with all pending applications disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
