https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456264 An inordinate 690-day delay in filing the review petition was not satisfactorily explained, so the petition was liable to dismissal on limitation alone. On merits, review was unavailable because the impugned order had correctly followed an existing three-Judge Bench precedent, and a possible later reconsideration of that precedent in another case could not invalidate the order under review. Applying the Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1(2) CPC, the SC reiterated that a later reversal or modification of law in a different matter is not a ground for review. The review petition was therefore rejected as both time-barred and meritless. en-us Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:18:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456264 An inordinate 690-day delay in filing the review petition was not satisfactorily explained, so the petition was liable to dismissal on limitation alone. On merits, review was unavailable because the impugned order had correctly followed an existing three-Judge Bench precedent, and a possible later reconsideration of that precedent in another case could not invalidate the order under review. Applying the Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1(2) CPC, the SC reiterated that a later reversal or modification of law in a different matter is not a ground for review. The review petition was therefore rejected as both time-barred and meritless. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456264