Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
Straight-line lease rental accounting change results in penalty quashed where disclosed accounts and bona fide arguable accounting interpretation exis...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7221 to 7240 of 96536 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.