https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459659 An order directing handover of possession was not treated as a consent order because the recorded terms did not show consent by the respondents' advocates. The Commission's power under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act to amend or revoke an order "at any time" was read as excluding a separate limitation period, so the review application was entertainable and not barred by limitation. The challenge to jurisdiction to direct delivery of possession was not decided on merits because that issue was reserved for final adjudication. The special leave petitions were dismissed. en-us Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Dec 2024 12:38:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459659 An order directing handover of possession was not treated as a consent order because the recorded terms did not show consent by the respondents' advocates. The Commission's power under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act to amend or revoke an order "at any time" was read as excluding a separate limitation period, so the review application was entertainable and not barred by limitation. The challenge to jurisdiction to direct delivery of possession was not decided on merits because that issue was reserved for final adjudication. The special leave petitions were dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459659