<?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>1986 (4) TMI 359 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277379</link>
    <description>A party that submits to a remand order without objection waives the right to challenge that remand later. After the appellate tribunal remanded the matter and the respondent participated in the fresh inquiry, the High Court should not have treated the remand as illegal or upset the ensuing orders under Article 227. Supervisory jurisdiction cannot be used to unsettle proceedings where the party had acquiesced in the remand and no surviving objection remained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2018 11:10:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=545192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (4) TMI 359 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277379</link>
      <description>A party that submits to a remand order without objection waives the right to challenge that remand later. After the appellate tribunal remanded the matter and the respondent participated in the fresh inquiry, the High Court should not have treated the remand as illegal or upset the ensuing orders under Article 227. Supervisory jurisdiction cannot be used to unsettle proceedings where the party had acquiesced in the remand and no surviving objection remained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277379</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>