https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312756 The Full Bench declined to answer the reference due to the absence of specific questions formulated by the referring Judges under Rule 35 of the C.H. Rules. The Chief Justice constituted the Full Bench, but it emphasized its jurisdiction was limited to answering specific questions, which were not provided. Consequently, the matter was not considered further, adhering to judicial discipline and the limits of advisory reference jurisdiction. The assistance of the amicus curiae and other counsels was acknowledged. en-us Thu, 06 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Mar 2024 11:00:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312756 The Full Bench declined to answer the reference due to the absence of specific questions formulated by the referring Judges under Rule 35 of the C.H. Rules. The Chief Justice constituted the Full Bench, but it emphasized its jurisdiction was limited to answering specific questions, which were not provided. Consequently, the matter was not considered further, adhering to judicial discipline and the limits of advisory reference jurisdiction. The assistance of the amicus curiae and other counsels was acknowledged. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312756