https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49437 An order refusing review of a writ decision was treated as a "judgment" because it conclusively affected substantive rights and was therefore appealable under the Letters Patent and High Court Rules. Section 11 of U.P. Act XIV of 1956 was held inapplicable to a High Court order under Article 226, since the provision was confined to proceedings under the special agricultural income-tax statute and could not be extended to constitutional writ proceedings. The review application also could not be converted at a late stage into one under Order XLVII CPC because that would raise unresolved questions of limitation, maintainability, and the reviewability of writ orders under the Code. en-us Mon, 26 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49437 An order refusing review of a writ decision was treated as a "judgment" because it conclusively affected substantive rights and was therefore appealable under the Letters Patent and High Court Rules. Section 11 of U.P. Act XIV of 1956 was held inapplicable to a High Court order under Article 226, since the provision was confined to proceedings under the special agricultural income-tax statute and could not be extended to constitutional writ proceedings. The review application also could not be converted at a late stage into one under Order XLVII CPC because that would raise unresolved questions of limitation, maintainability, and the reviewability of writ orders under the Code. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 26 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49437