Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3001 to 3020 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Review jurisdiction was exercised to reopen earlier Tribunal orders because the Supreme Court's three-Judge Bench order recalling Ganpati Dealcom and granting liberty to seek review was treated as binding. The Tribunal held it had no competence to disregard that order or treat it as per incuriam, and a contrary Gauhati High Court view could not override binding Supreme Court precedent. On the Tribunal's earlier reasoning regarding review and delay, the review petitions were entertained, the delay in filing was condoned, and the matters were reopened.
Review jurisdiction was exercised to reopen earlier Tribunal orders because the Supreme Court's three-Judge Bench order recalling Ganpati Dealcom and granting liberty to seek review was treated as binding. The Tribunal held it had no competence to disregard that order or treat it as per incuriam, and a contrary Gauhati High Court view could not override binding Supreme Court precedent. On the Tribunal's earlier reasoning regarding review and delay, the review petitions were entertained, the delay in filing was condoned, and the matters were reopened.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.