Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
SC held that Section 25, as post-2002 amended, contains a...
Section 25's drafting gap on enforcing non-monetary orders allows interpretive remedies; Section 27A not available against first-appellate execution orders
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
SC held that Section 25, as post-2002 amended, contains a drafting lacuna concerning enforcement of non-monetary final orders; courts may employ interpretative tools to rectify ambiguity where literal construction yields absurdity or frustrates the Act's spirit. Revision petitions filed against orders in execution proceedings before the State Commission were treated as appeals against the District Forum's execution order, but such first-appellate orders do not attract Section 27A jurisdiction and are not maintainable before the National Commission. Consequently, no further remedy lies under the consumer appellate scheme against the State Commission's first-appellate order in execution proceedings; aggrieved parties remain at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies available under law. Appeal disposed.
SC held that Section 25, as post-2002 amended, contains a drafting lacuna concerning enforcement of non-monetary final orders; courts may employ interpretative tools to rectify ambiguity where literal construction yields absurdity or frustrates the Act's spirit. Revision petitions filed against orders in execution proceedings before the State Commission were treated as appeals against the District Forum's execution order, but such first-appellate orders do not attract Section 27A jurisdiction and are not maintainable before the National Commission. Consequently, no further remedy lies under the consumer appellate scheme against the State Commission's first-appellate order in execution proceedings; aggrieved parties remain at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies available under law. Appeal disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
