https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416185 A belated attempt to revive a concluded service dispute through execution was rejected because the petitioner did not pursue the remedy within time and offered no satisfactory basis to reopen the matter. Applying the limitation scheme under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal held the execution application time-barred and declined to entertain it. The High Court found no infirmity in that reasoning and held that the delayed approach did not warrant supervisory interference under Articles 226 and 227. The dismissal of the execution application was therefore sustained. en-us Thu, 02 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Dec 2021 12:07:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416185 A belated attempt to revive a concluded service dispute through execution was rejected because the petitioner did not pursue the remedy within time and offered no satisfactory basis to reopen the matter. Applying the limitation scheme under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal held the execution application time-barred and declined to entertain it. The High Court found no infirmity in that reasoning and held that the delayed approach did not warrant supervisory interference under Articles 226 and 227. The dismissal of the execution application was therefore sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 02 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416185