Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 95999 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court considered the maintainability of a writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition despite the petitioner not challenging the allegedly erroneous orders. The Court clarified that a writ of prohibition is typically used to supervise and restrict courts or tribunals from acting beyond their jurisdiction. Reference was made to a Supreme Court case emphasizing the distinction between issuing writs of certiorari and prohibition to correct jurisdictional errors. While both writs can correct jurisdictional errors, certiorari corrects after a decision, and prohibition can prevent errors before a decision. In this case, as the appellate authority had already made a determination, issuing a writ of prohibition was deemed unnecessary. The Court found the petitioner's request to defer recovery without seeking adjudication of rights insufficient, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
The High Court considered the maintainability of a writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition despite the petitioner not challenging the allegedly erroneous orders. The Court clarified that a writ of prohibition is typically used to supervise and restrict courts or tribunals from acting beyond their jurisdiction. Reference was made to a Supreme Court case emphasizing the distinction between issuing writs of certiorari and prohibition to correct jurisdictional errors. While both writs can correct jurisdictional errors, certiorari corrects after a decision, and prohibition can prevent errors before a decision. In this case, as the appellate authority had already made a determination, issuing a writ of prohibition was deemed unnecessary. The Court found the petitioner's request to defer recovery without seeking adjudication of rights insufficient, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
