1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
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>Review petitions dismissed for unexplained 337- and 334-day delays, procedural defects, and no meritorious error under Order XLVII Rule 5</h1> SC dismissed both review petitions, finding unexplained delays of 337 and 334 days and procedural defects (failure to state filed-on/drawn-on dates and ... Delay of 337 days and 334 days respectively in filing these Review Petitions - defects in the review petitions as Advocate has not mentioned the filed on and drawn on dates in the application and advocate has not mentioned the averment under Order XLVII Rule 5. HELD THAT:- The defects were notified to the learned counsel by letter but the same have not been cured so far - Delay of 337 days and 334 days respectively in filing these Review Petitions which has not been satisfactorily explained. Also the order(s) under challenge and the papers annexed therewith, we are satisfied that there is no error apparent on the face of the record or any merit in the Review Petitions, warranting reconsideration of the order impugned. Accordingly, Review Petitions are dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Office Report dated 19.09.2025 identified defects in the Review Petitions: counsel 'has not mentioned the filed on and drawn on dates in the application' and 'has not mentioned the averment under Order XLVII Rule 5.' Those defects were notified by letter dated 31.07.2025 but remain uncured. There is an unexplained delay of 337 days and 334 days respectively in filing the Review Petitions. The Court, after perusal of the Review Petitions, the order(s) under challenge and annexed papers, found 'no error apparent on the face of the record or any merit in the Review Petitions, warranting reconsideration of the order impugned.' Consequently, the Review Petitions are dismissed both 'on the ground of delay as well as on merits.' Pending application(s) stand disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
