<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (2) TMI 1409 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457073</link>
    <description>Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue the case or obtain a rehearing on merits. The Court found no such apparent error in the earlier judgment, which had proceeded on admitted facts and had already been unsuccessfully challenged in appeal. The review application was therefore not maintainable on merits, and interference with the earlier judgment was declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2024 20:04:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=766570" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 1409 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457073</link>
      <description>Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue the case or obtain a rehearing on merits. The Court found no such apparent error in the earlier judgment, which had proceeded on admitted facts and had already been unsuccessfully challenged in appeal. The review application was therefore not maintainable on merits, and interference with the earlier judgment was declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457073</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>