https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760002 A subsequent Special Leave Petition was not entertained because the controversy was already covered by an earlier binding judgment. The pendency of review proceedings, or the fact that notice had been issued in connected matters, did not justify interference in light of the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The text also notes that related review petitions had been dismissed both for delay and on merits. The operative effect was dismissal of the later petition in deference to the prior decision. en-us Fri, 26 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 May 2026 15:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760002 A subsequent Special Leave Petition was not entertained because the controversy was already covered by an earlier binding judgment. The pendency of review proceedings, or the fact that notice had been issued in connected matters, did not justify interference in light of the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The text also notes that related review petitions had been dismissed both for delay and on merits. The operative effect was dismissal of the later petition in deference to the prior decision. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 26 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760002