https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404751 A procedural interlocutory order that does not finally determine rights may be reconsidered, and belated procedural compliance may be allowed where no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. The Bombay High Court accepted that the DRT's refusal to condone delay in filing a claim affidavit was only a procedural direction, not a final adjudication on the merits, and upheld the DRAT's decision to receive the affidavit. The Court noted the earlier forfeiture order, the resumption of tribunal functioning, the affidavit's readiness, and the opportunity given to the petitioner to reply, concluding that no interference was warranted and the proceedings should continue expeditiously. en-us Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Mar 2021 11:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404751 A procedural interlocutory order that does not finally determine rights may be reconsidered, and belated procedural compliance may be allowed where no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. The Bombay High Court accepted that the DRT's refusal to condone delay in filing a claim affidavit was only a procedural direction, not a final adjudication on the merits, and upheld the DRAT's decision to receive the affidavit. The Court noted the earlier forfeiture order, the resumption of tribunal functioning, the affidavit's readiness, and the opportunity given to the petitioner to reply, concluding that no interference was warranted and the proceedings should continue expeditiously. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404751