https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172007 Finality inter partes was treated as controlling because the parties had already accepted substitution of the legal heirs in earlier proceedings and the appellant had not raised a timely objection; the later change in legal interpretation did not reopen that settled position. The Court also held that dismissal of the earlier special leave petition, read with the prior writ and substitution orders, barred the appellant from re-agitating maintainability on res judicata and finality grounds. On judicial review of the Central Government's approval order, the Court found an institutional hearing had occurred, the materials were available to the parties, and the order was not vitiated merely because a different officer communicated it. No procedural infirmity was established. en-us Thu, 07 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172007 Finality inter partes was treated as controlling because the parties had already accepted substitution of the legal heirs in earlier proceedings and the appellant had not raised a timely objection; the later change in legal interpretation did not reopen that settled position. The Court also held that dismissal of the earlier special leave petition, read with the prior writ and substitution orders, barred the appellant from re-agitating maintainability on res judicata and finality grounds. On judicial review of the Central Government's approval order, the Court found an institutional hearing had occurred, the materials were available to the parties, and the order was not vitiated merely because a different officer communicated it. No procedural infirmity was established. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 07 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172007