Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
A review order restoring pending appeals was treated as a consequence of the liberty expressly reserved in the earlier appellate order and of the Supreme Court's recall of the binding precedent. The HC held that, where the Tribunal allowed review and restored the appeals in terms of that liberty, the appellants could not challenge the restoration by disputing review power or limitation. It further held that an order granting review and reviving the main appeal is interlocutory and not independently appealable, because the CPC applies to the Tribunal and the bar in Order 47 Rule 7 CPC operates against an appeal from such a review order. The appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
A review order restoring pending appeals was treated as a consequence of the liberty expressly reserved in the earlier appellate order and of the Supreme Court's recall of the binding precedent. The HC held that, where the Tribunal allowed review and restored the appeals in terms of that liberty, the appellants could not challenge the restoration by disputing review power or limitation. It further held that an order granting review and reviving the main appeal is interlocutory and not independently appealable, because the CPC applies to the Tribunal and the bar in Order 47 Rule 7 CPC operates against an appeal from such a review order. The appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.