<?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>1968 (12) TMI 108 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281786</link>
    <description>Section 561-A inherent power was treated as surviving the bar on alteration or review after judgment, allowing recall of a criminal order where necessary to secure the ends of justice. The earlier authorities were distinguished, and the Full Bench view recognising limited recall or review power was followed. The Court also stressed that a joint proceeding under Section 145 could not be effectively revised for one claimant alone when the other joint claimants were not before the revisional court and the original order had become final against them. On the record, possession with the opposite side was sufficiently established, so the Magistrate&#039;s order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jul 2019 10:47:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=578307" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (12) TMI 108 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281786</link>
      <description>Section 561-A inherent power was treated as surviving the bar on alteration or review after judgment, allowing recall of a criminal order where necessary to secure the ends of justice. The earlier authorities were distinguished, and the Full Bench view recognising limited recall or review power was followed. The Court also stressed that a joint proceeding under Section 145 could not be effectively revised for one claimant alone when the other joint claimants were not before the revisional court and the original order had become final against them. On the record, possession with the opposite side was sufficiently established, so the Magistrate&#039;s order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281786</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>