https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445163 Review under Article 137 is confined to patent, self-evident error or a similarly narrow ground, and cannot be used to reargue a concluded merits decision. A later co-ordinate Bench view, by itself, does not justify review; the proper course is reference to a larger Bench. The earlier judgment had already considered the insolvency waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and related provisions, so the alleged omission was unfounded. The document restates that review jurisdiction cannot reopen matters already decided on the merits. en-us Tue, 31 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Sep 2024 10:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445163 Review under Article 137 is confined to patent, self-evident error or a similarly narrow ground, and cannot be used to reargue a concluded merits decision. A later co-ordinate Bench view, by itself, does not justify review; the proper course is reference to a larger Bench. The earlier judgment had already considered the insolvency waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and related provisions, so the alleged omission was unfounded. The document restates that review jurisdiction cannot reopen matters already decided on the merits. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Tue, 31 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445163