Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that the rectification applications under Section 161 were improperly employed to recall an order allowing the petitioner's appeal; such relief cannot substitute for the statutory appellate remedy. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification, as the impugned orders required substantive examination rather than a manifest clerical mistake. Consequently the rectification orders were quashed, the order allowing the appeal was restored, and the petition was allowed. The HC emphasized that an aggrieved party must pursue the prescribed statutory remedy rather than seek recall via Section 161.
The HC held that the rectification applications under Section 161 were improperly employed to recall an order allowing the petitioner's appeal; such relief cannot substitute for the statutory appellate remedy. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification, as the impugned orders required substantive examination rather than a manifest clerical mistake. Consequently the rectification orders were quashed, the order allowing the appeal was restored, and the petition was allowed. The HC emphasized that an aggrieved party must pursue the prescribed statutory remedy rather than seek recall via Section 161.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
