https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459100 The Supreme Court declined to entertain the petition challenging the High Court's Single Judge judgment but criticized the High Court's approach as untenable. It emphasized the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments under Article 141 of the Constitution and found the Single Judge's observations inconsistent with the Arnesh Kumar case. The Supreme Court quashed the Division Bench's judgment and orders, invalidated certain directions, and granted permission for a special leave petition. It instructed the Single Judge to reevaluate the case without influence from the Division Bench's remarks and to consider the writ petitions promptly, preferably within four weeks. The special leave petition and any pending applications were disposed of. en-us Mon, 21 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 01 Dec 2024 09:34:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459100 The Supreme Court declined to entertain the petition challenging the High Court's Single Judge judgment but criticized the High Court's approach as untenable. It emphasized the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments under Article 141 of the Constitution and found the Single Judge's observations inconsistent with the Arnesh Kumar case. The Supreme Court quashed the Division Bench's judgment and orders, invalidated certain directions, and granted permission for a special leave petition. It instructed the Single Judge to reevaluate the case without influence from the Division Bench's remarks and to consider the writ petitions promptly, preferably within four weeks. The special leave petition and any pending applications were disposed of. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 21 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459100