https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461176 Oral consent expressly recorded by the Court was valid, and the absence of written consent was not a legally sustainable ground to review and recall the earlier consent order. The SC held that the impugned review order could not stand because the recorded oral consent of counsel bound the parties. The review order was set aside and the earlier order dated 26 April 2024 was restored. en-us Mon, 20 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Mar 2025 18:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461176 Oral consent expressly recorded by the Court was valid, and the absence of written consent was not a legally sustainable ground to review and recall the earlier consent order. The SC held that the impugned review order could not stand because the recorded oral consent of counsel bound the parties. The review order was set aside and the earlier order dated 26 April 2024 was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461176