<?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>2018 (1) TMI 552 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353816</link>
    <description>A remand order must contain a clear and specific judicial endorsement, especially where the remand exceeds 15 days; without it, the remand is illegal and cannot be treated as a mere procedural irregularity. Permitting a Reader to record the remand order was held to be a departure from settled procedure that went to the legality of the remand itself, so the impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was sent back to the High Court for fresh hearing with all contentions left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2021 11:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 552 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353816</link>
      <description>A remand order must contain a clear and specific judicial endorsement, especially where the remand exceeds 15 days; without it, the remand is illegal and cannot be treated as a mere procedural irregularity. Permitting a Reader to record the remand order was held to be a departure from settled procedure that went to the legality of the remand itself, so the impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was sent back to the High Court for fresh hearing with all contentions left open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353816</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>