https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106544 A Division Bench's intra-court appeal order restoring a company application was binding in result, but its direction to the Single Judge on the future course of hearing was criticised as improper because Single Judges are not subordinate to Division Benches and judicial orders must respect institutional boundaries. The text stresses that such directions do not belong in intra-court appellate orders and may erode judicial independence if repeated. The sitting Judge, while accepting the binding effect of the restoration, objected to the form of the order, recused himself from further hearing, and directed the registry to place the papers before the Chief Justice for appropriate administrative orders. en-us Wed, 21 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:46:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106544 A Division Bench's intra-court appeal order restoring a company application was binding in result, but its direction to the Single Judge on the future course of hearing was criticised as improper because Single Judges are not subordinate to Division Benches and judicial orders must respect institutional boundaries. The text stresses that such directions do not belong in intra-court appellate orders and may erode judicial independence if repeated. The sitting Judge, while accepting the binding effect of the restoration, objected to the form of the order, recused himself from further hearing, and directed the registry to place the papers before the Chief Justice for appropriate administrative orders. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 21 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106544