<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (11) TMI 339 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114447</link>
    <description>An order of the Chief Justice transferring a writ petition between the Lucknow and Allahabad Benches under Paragraph 14 of the 1948 Amalgamation Order was held to be judicial or at least quasi-judicial because it affected forum choice, required hearing the affected party, and had to be decided on objective criteria; it was therefore amenable to correction under Article 136. The transfer order was also found unsustainable on merits because the stated reasons did not justify invoking the limited transfer power, convenience of parties could not displace the appellant&#039;s right as dominus litis, and the record did not support the conclusion that the hearing had not concluded. The transfer was quashed and the writ petition restored to the Lucknow Bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151446" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 339 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114447</link>
      <description>An order of the Chief Justice transferring a writ petition between the Lucknow and Allahabad Benches under Paragraph 14 of the 1948 Amalgamation Order was held to be judicial or at least quasi-judicial because it affected forum choice, required hearing the affected party, and had to be decided on objective criteria; it was therefore amenable to correction under Article 136. The transfer order was also found unsustainable on merits because the stated reasons did not justify invoking the limited transfer power, convenience of parties could not displace the appellant&#039;s right as dominus litis, and the record did not support the conclusion that the hearing had not concluded. The transfer was quashed and the writ petition restored to the Lucknow Bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114447</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>