<?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>1992 (5) TMI 203 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307430</link>
    <description>A certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 read with Article 134A requires a substantial question of law of general importance that is necessary for decision of the case. A statement of legal propositions alone is insufficient unless the question is essential to the result on the facts found. The challenges based on constitutional safeguards, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the judgment-pronouncement procedure were treated as settled legal issues or fact-specific applications, not questions warranting certification. The court also noted that the procedure used for pronouncing judgment was permissible under the court rules and no prejudice was shown. The request for certification was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:33:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=710594" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (5) TMI 203 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307430</link>
      <description>A certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 read with Article 134A requires a substantial question of law of general importance that is necessary for decision of the case. A statement of legal propositions alone is insufficient unless the question is essential to the result on the facts found. The challenges based on constitutional safeguards, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the judgment-pronouncement procedure were treated as settled legal issues or fact-specific applications, not questions warranting certification. The court also noted that the procedure used for pronouncing judgment was permissible under the court rules and no prejudice was shown. The request for certification was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307430</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>