https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404751 The High Court upheld the DRAT's decision, allowing respondent No. 1 to file a delayed claim affidavit, emphasizing the importance of a fair hearing and considering material evidence. The Court affirmed that interlocutory orders, like the one dated January 16, 2018, can be reconsidered and do not necessarily preclude rights of parties. The directive was given to expedite the main application's disposal, ensuring a balanced approach to preserving parties' rights and facilitating the case's prompt resolution. 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 The High Court upheld the DRAT's decision, allowing respondent No. 1 to file a delayed claim affidavit, emphasizing the importance of a fair hearing and considering material evidence. The Court affirmed that interlocutory orders, like the one dated January 16, 2018, can be reconsidered and do not necessarily preclude rights of parties. The directive was given to expedite the main application's disposal, ensuring a balanced approach to preserving parties' rights and facilitating the case's prompt resolution. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404751