https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195319 A compromise recorded by the trial court on the Government Pleader's endorsement was binding on the State because counsel appearing for a party may consent to settlement where the record shows acceptance, and a later bare denial of authority cannot displace what was recorded without a contemporaneous objection before that court. The High Court should not have set aside the consent decrees or remanded the Section 34 petitions merely on an unsupported plea of lack of authority. The consent decrees were therefore restored and the State remained bound by the compromise. en-us Mon, 04 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:33:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195319 A compromise recorded by the trial court on the Government Pleader's endorsement was binding on the State because counsel appearing for a party may consent to settlement where the record shows acceptance, and a later bare denial of authority cannot displace what was recorded without a contemporaneous objection before that court. The High Court should not have set aside the consent decrees or remanded the Section 34 petitions merely on an unsupported plea of lack of authority. The consent decrees were therefore restored and the State remained bound by the compromise. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195319