https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789809 A procedural objection raised for the first time at a late stage did not justify interference under Article 136 because the petitioner had not objected earlier and failed to show any resulting prejudice. Although the Court noted reservations about the impugned judgment, it held that those concerns alone were insufficient to disturb the order in the absence of a timely objection and demonstrated prejudice. Special leave was therefore declined and the petition dismissed. en-us Mon, 13 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2026 09:04:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789809 A procedural objection raised for the first time at a late stage did not justify interference under Article 136 because the petitioner had not objected earlier and failed to show any resulting prejudice. Although the Court noted reservations about the impugned judgment, it held that those concerns alone were insufficient to disturb the order in the absence of a timely objection and demonstrated prejudice. Special leave was therefore declined and the petition dismissed. Case-Laws SEBI Mon, 13 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789809