https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313099 Review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to reargue the case or act as an appellate forum. The Madras HC noted that the earlier judgment had already treated grant of permit to another applicant as rejection of the remaining applications, including the petitioner's, and had applied the protective umbrella under Section 10 of Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992 equally to the petitioner. The complaint that a certified copy was not issued did not change the legal position, because the rejection was treated as appealable and the available remedy was not pursued. No error apparent on the face of the record or other infirmity was shown, so review was rejected. en-us Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Mar 2024 12:37:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313099 Review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to reargue the case or act as an appellate forum. The Madras HC noted that the earlier judgment had already treated grant of permit to another applicant as rejection of the remaining applications, including the petitioner's, and had applied the protective umbrella under Section 10 of Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992 equally to the petitioner. The complaint that a certified copy was not issued did not change the legal position, because the rejection was treated as appealable and the available remedy was not pursued. No error apparent on the face of the record or other infirmity was shown, so review was rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313099