https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311762 A request to transfer a pending tribunal proceeding from Hyderabad to Ahmedabad was rejected where the proceeding had been initiated by the petitioner at Hyderabad and had reached the final stage of hearing. The petitioner did not dispute the Tribunal's jurisdiction at Hyderabad; the claim rested instead on post-retirement convenience and alleged hardship. The Court also treated its earlier ruling on territorial jurisdiction in challenges to transfer orders as binding, finding no basis to disregard it or treat it as per incuriam. Independently of that precedent, the reasoning for refusing transfer was found unobjectionable, and the special leave petition was dismissed. en-us Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:42:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311762 A request to transfer a pending tribunal proceeding from Hyderabad to Ahmedabad was rejected where the proceeding had been initiated by the petitioner at Hyderabad and had reached the final stage of hearing. The petitioner did not dispute the Tribunal's jurisdiction at Hyderabad; the claim rested instead on post-retirement convenience and alleged hardship. The Court also treated its earlier ruling on territorial jurisdiction in challenges to transfer orders as binding, finding no basis to disregard it or treat it as per incuriam. Independently of that precedent, the reasoning for refusing transfer was found unobjectionable, and the special leave petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311762