<?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>2017 (11) TMI 2067 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459707</link>
    <description>The Chief Justice of India, as master of the roster, has exclusive authority to constitute Benches and allocate cases, and an earlier direction by another Bench could not control that assignment. Successive identically worded petitions, coupled with attempts to avoid a particular Bench and seek recusal without a sustainable basis, were treated as forum shopping and an impermissible effort to choose the forum, so the recusal objection failed. No material linked the higher judiciary to the FIR allegations, and the request to transfer the investigation to an SIT under Article 32 was found misconceived and unwarranted; the petition was dismissed in full.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2024 20:36:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=784413" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 2067 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459707</link>
      <description>The Chief Justice of India, as master of the roster, has exclusive authority to constitute Benches and allocate cases, and an earlier direction by another Bench could not control that assignment. Successive identically worded petitions, coupled with attempts to avoid a particular Bench and seek recusal without a sustainable basis, were treated as forum shopping and an impermissible effort to choose the forum, so the recusal objection failed. No material linked the higher judiciary to the FIR allegations, and the request to transfer the investigation to an SIT under Article 32 was found misconceived and unwarranted; the petition was dismissed in full.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459707</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>