Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Co-operative deduction eligibility excludes refund and commercial-bank interest, while qualifying co-operative investments require entity-wise verific...
Enhanced tax rate on surrendered unexplained income applies prospectively, while cash-deposit telescoping requires verification of available surrender...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 528 BNSS confers an extraordinary inherent power to be used sparingly to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, and not as a substitute for the ordinary statutory remedy. The HC held that a composite challenge to distinct criminal orders arising at different stages could not be maintained in a single rolled-up petition, especially where the orders rejecting discharge and framing charge were separately revisable. Because the petitioner had an efficacious remedy, did not pursue it within limitation, and approached the court belatedly after trial had commenced and participation in proceedings had occurred, the inherent jurisdiction could not be invoked to bypass the revisional forum. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, and conversion into a criminal revision was refused.
Section 528 BNSS confers an extraordinary inherent power to be used sparingly to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, and not as a substitute for the ordinary statutory remedy. The HC held that a composite challenge to distinct criminal orders arising at different stages could not be maintained in a single rolled-up petition, especially where the orders rejecting discharge and framing charge were separately revisable. Because the petitioner had an efficacious remedy, did not pursue it within limitation, and approached the court belatedly after trial had commenced and participation in proceedings had occurred, the inherent jurisdiction could not be invoked to bypass the revisional forum. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, and conversion into a criminal revision was refused.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.