<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (2) TMI 924 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306821</link>
    <description>A judicial order setting aside concurrent findings and remanding a matter must disclose reasons. A cryptic or non-speaking order is unsustainable because judicial review and appellate scrutiny require a discernible basis for the decision. Here, the High Court reversed the trial and revisional orders and directed fresh disposal without recording any reasons, so the order was set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal after hearing both parties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2023 14:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=705952" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (2) TMI 924 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306821</link>
      <description>A judicial order setting aside concurrent findings and remanding a matter must disclose reasons. A cryptic or non-speaking order is unsustainable because judicial review and appellate scrutiny require a discernible basis for the decision. Here, the High Court reversed the trial and revisional orders and directed fresh disposal without recording any reasons, so the order was set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal after hearing both parties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>