https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460162 Review jurisdiction is narrow, and non-consideration of an earlier Supreme Court decision is an error apparent only when the omitted ruling is directly contrary to the judgment under review and the conflict is patent without detailed reasoning. Where the precedent would require factual comparison or advanced argument, its omission does not justify review. On the facts, the earlier Supreme Court ruling on exclusive recovery jurisdiction was distinguished because winding-up and sale proceedings had substantially progressed, the secured creditor had participated in the sale, and no parallel recovery proceeding was being usurped. The Company Court's jurisdiction to confirm the sale therefore remained unaffected. en-us Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jan 2025 15:04:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460162 Review jurisdiction is narrow, and non-consideration of an earlier Supreme Court decision is an error apparent only when the omitted ruling is directly contrary to the judgment under review and the conflict is patent without detailed reasoning. Where the precedent would require factual comparison or advanced argument, its omission does not justify review. On the facts, the earlier Supreme Court ruling on exclusive recovery jurisdiction was distinguished because winding-up and sale proceedings had substantially progressed, the secured creditor had participated in the sale, and no parallel recovery proceeding was being usurped. The Company Court's jurisdiction to confirm the sale therefore remained unaffected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460162