https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110301 Interference under Article 136 was declined against a discretionary refusal of interim mandatory possession under Section 12A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, because the order disclosed no jurisdictional error, patent illegality, perversity, or other grave infirmity. The Commission's view that the matter was ready for final disposal, that the applicants remained protected against cancellation of allotment, and that no irreparable loss would follow was treated as a proper basis for refusing interim possession. A prior similar request had also been rejected, and no acceptable without-prejudice offer for the disputed extra charges had been made. en-us Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Aug 2013 11:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110301 Interference under Article 136 was declined against a discretionary refusal of interim mandatory possession under Section 12A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, because the order disclosed no jurisdictional error, patent illegality, perversity, or other grave infirmity. The Commission's view that the matter was ready for final disposal, that the applicants remained protected against cancellation of allotment, and that no irreparable loss would follow was treated as a proper basis for refusing interim possession. A prior similar request had also been rejected, and no acceptable without-prejudice offer for the disputed extra charges had been made. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110301