<?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>2004 (9) TMI 707 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307406</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) against review orders and previously dismissed petitions are not maintainable. The Court emphasized that once an SLP against the main order is dismissed, challenging the main order again is impermissible. It reiterated that SLPs are not maintainable against orders in review petitions, citing established legal principles. The Court refused to pass an identical order as requested by the petitioners, upholding the settled legal position. Consequently, leave to file the SLPs was refused, and they were dismissed. The Court directed the office to include the current order in the file of any future SLPs against the specific orders mentioned in the case for clarity and consistency.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2023 15:57:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=710415" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 707 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307406</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) against review orders and previously dismissed petitions are not maintainable. The Court emphasized that once an SLP against the main order is dismissed, challenging the main order again is impermissible. It reiterated that SLPs are not maintainable against orders in review petitions, citing established legal principles. The Court refused to pass an identical order as requested by the petitioners, upholding the settled legal position. Consequently, leave to file the SLPs was refused, and they were dismissed. The Court directed the office to include the current order in the file of any future SLPs against the specific orders mentioned in the case for clarity and consistency.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307406</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>