https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23043 A learned single judge could not directly refer a matter to a Full Bench where the appellate rules required an initial reference through a Division Bench with recorded reasons; the reference route had to follow the ordinary judicial channel. The commentary also notes that sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 were treated as protected by Article 31C because they implemented the Directive Principles in Article 39(b) and (c). On that basis, the challenge under Articles 14 and 19 was rejected and the earlier binding view was not reopened. en-us Wed, 08 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:09:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23043 A learned single judge could not directly refer a matter to a Full Bench where the appellate rules required an initial reference through a Division Bench with recorded reasons; the reference route had to follow the ordinary judicial channel. The commentary also notes that sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 were treated as protected by Article 31C because they implemented the Directive Principles in Article 39(b) and (c). On that basis, the challenge under Articles 14 and 19 was rejected and the earlier binding view was not reopened. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23043