and Restricts Article 227 Interference in Trial Court Decisions

Home - and Restricts Article 227 Interference in Trial Court Decisions

Posted inNews

Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition to Recall Witness After 27 Years: Emphasizes “Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt,” Affirms Limited Scope of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, and Restricts Article 227 Interference in Trial Court Decisions

Court’s Decision: The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a trial court order that had rejected an application under Order…

Posted by

Rawlaw March 5, 2025

Recent News

CESTAT New Delhi holds that “no question arises for granting interest from date of deposit” — Tribunal clarifies that interest on refund of differential customs duty applies only under Section 27A and not Section 35FF
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal: “Export Is Complete the Moment Goods Cross India’s Borders” — Tribunal Quashes Confiscation and Restores Drawback for Shipments Diverted to Dubai, Rejects Revenue’s Reliance on RBI Circular
CESTAT: “Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof” — Tribunal Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalties After Finding No Evidence of Overvaluation in Export Incentive Case
CESTAT holds that “a person cannot be placed in a more grievous situation for exercising appellate remedy” — Tribunal sets aside confiscation, redemption fine, and duty demand while restoring exemption under ASEAN-India FTA
Supreme Court of India holds that “we find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order” — Apex Court upholds CESTAT’s ruling in indirect tax dispute and dismisses appeal filed by revenue authorities

Scroll to Top