https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458713 The effect of an interim stay on the period under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was considered unresolved, and the Court expressed doubt whether the stayed period should be excluded when determining lapse of acquisition proceedings. It noted that prior coordinate bench views treating the omission in Section 24(2) as conscious had been followed in several cases, but a three-judge bench had not answered this precise issue. Applying the principle that an act of court should not prejudice a party, the questions were referred for decision by a larger bench. en-us Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Nov 2024 21:07:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458713 The effect of an interim stay on the period under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was considered unresolved, and the Court expressed doubt whether the stayed period should be excluded when determining lapse of acquisition proceedings. It noted that prior coordinate bench views treating the omission in Section 24(2) as conscious had been followed in several cases, but a three-judge bench had not answered this precise issue. Applying the principle that an act of court should not prejudice a party, the questions were referred for decision by a larger bench. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458713