https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789809 A procedural objection raised for the first time at the later stage was not entertained because it had not been taken earlier in the proceedings and no prejudice from the alleged error was shown. The Supreme Court noted reservations about the impugned judgment but declined interference under Article 136, holding that the combination of an untimely objection and absence of demonstrated prejudice did not justify review. The special leave petition was dismissed. en-us Mon, 13 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2026 09:05:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789809 A procedural objection raised for the first time at the later stage was not entertained because it had not been taken earlier in the proceedings and no prejudice from the alleged error was shown. The Supreme Court noted reservations about the impugned judgment but declined interference under Article 136, holding that the combination of an untimely objection and absence of demonstrated prejudice did not justify review. The special leave petition was dismissed. Case-Laws SEBI Mon, 13 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789809