https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434915 An order directing execution of a production warrant was treated as interlocutory because it did not determine substantive rights or liabilities and merely facilitated compliance in the absence of any stay, so revisional interference was unavailable. The Court also found that pursuing successive proceedings in different forums to resist execution, while no stay remained in force, amounted to forum shopping and obstruction of the court's process. On that basis, compensatory costs were considered justified. The broader principle stated is that a purely interlocutory order is not revisable, and repeated proceedings aimed at thwarting execution of a judicial process may attract costs. en-us Sat, 04 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Mar 2023 11:07:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434915 An order directing execution of a production warrant was treated as interlocutory because it did not determine substantive rights or liabilities and merely facilitated compliance in the absence of any stay, so revisional interference was unavailable. The Court also found that pursuing successive proceedings in different forums to resist execution, while no stay remained in force, amounted to forum shopping and obstruction of the court's process. On that basis, compensatory costs were considered justified. The broader principle stated is that a purely interlocutory order is not revisable, and repeated proceedings aimed at thwarting execution of a judicial process may attract costs. Case-Laws Money Laundering Sat, 04 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434915