https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302229 A miscellaneous application seeking substitution of a final demolition direction was treated as a disguised review because it asked for substantive alteration of concluded directions. The Supreme Court reiterated that applications labelled as clarification, modification, recall, or miscellaneous cannot be used to bypass the prescribed review procedure. Inherent powers under the Supreme Court Rules cannot be invoked to circumvent the specific review framework, and a party cannot do indirectly what the rules prohibit directly. The application was therefore not maintainable, as reopening a final judgment in this manner would undermine finality and amount to abuse of process. en-us Mon, 04 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 May 2022 08:32:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302229 A miscellaneous application seeking substitution of a final demolition direction was treated as a disguised review because it asked for substantive alteration of concluded directions. The Supreme Court reiterated that applications labelled as clarification, modification, recall, or miscellaneous cannot be used to bypass the prescribed review procedure. Inherent powers under the Supreme Court Rules cannot be invoked to circumvent the specific review framework, and a party cannot do indirectly what the rules prohibit directly. The application was therefore not maintainable, as reopening a final judgment in this manner would undermine finality and amount to abuse of process. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302229