https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765660 The Bombay High Court held that a review petition was not maintainable where the Advocate's certificate did not conform to Chapter IV Rule 23(iii) of the Bombay High Court Rules, because the form is meant to ensure counsel accepts responsibility for the review grounds. In any event, the court found no error apparent or other basis for review, as the application largely sought to re-argue matters already decided, including the challenge to the pre-deposit requirement. Because review jurisdiction is limited to narrow grounds and the applicant showed no sufficient case for interference, the petition was dismissed. en-us Mon, 03 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jun 2025 12:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765660 The Bombay High Court held that a review petition was not maintainable where the Advocate's certificate did not conform to Chapter IV Rule 23(iii) of the Bombay High Court Rules, because the form is meant to ensure counsel accepts responsibility for the review grounds. In any event, the court found no error apparent or other basis for review, as the application largely sought to re-argue matters already decided, including the challenge to the pre-deposit requirement. Because review jurisdiction is limited to narrow grounds and the applicant showed no sufficient case for interference, the petition was dismissed. Case-Laws GST Mon, 03 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765660