https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189500 Suppression of a material fact and fraud on the court can justify reopening proceedings despite substantial delay. The Court stated that where a prior appellate order was concealed and the matter had otherwise reached finality, later steps such as possession or allotment did not prevent recall and revival of the proceedings. It further held that delay objections could not shield an order procured by suppression, although the High Court may still balance equities between the parties while examining the merits. The challenge to reopening was rejected, and interference under Article 136 was declined. en-us Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Dec 2023 10:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189500 Suppression of a material fact and fraud on the court can justify reopening proceedings despite substantial delay. The Court stated that where a prior appellate order was concealed and the matter had otherwise reached finality, later steps such as possession or allotment did not prevent recall and revival of the proceedings. It further held that delay objections could not shield an order procured by suppression, although the High Court may still balance equities between the parties while examining the merits. The challenge to reopening was rejected, and interference under Article 136 was declined. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189500