https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110623 Where parties have, by consent and participation, pursued a statutory tribunal and a Division Bench on the same controversy, the company court may treat the prior course as leave by necessary implication and decline to reopen the jurisdictional objection under company law. The commentary also states that a resumption proceeding affecting disputed land cannot be re-agitated in collateral company proceedings once the Tribunal and Division Bench have recorded findings on the relevant land status and ceiling position, particularly where those findings conflict with the State's asserted resumption. The operative theme is finality of earlier statutory adjudication and resistance to collateral reopening. en-us Tue, 16 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:56:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110623 Where parties have, by consent and participation, pursued a statutory tribunal and a Division Bench on the same controversy, the company court may treat the prior course as leave by necessary implication and decline to reopen the jurisdictional objection under company law. The commentary also states that a resumption proceeding affecting disputed land cannot be re-agitated in collateral company proceedings once the Tribunal and Division Bench have recorded findings on the relevant land status and ceiling position, particularly where those findings conflict with the State's asserted resumption. The operative theme is finality of earlier statutory adjudication and resistance to collateral reopening. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 16 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110623