TEJINDER KAUR AND ORS. v. RAJ KUMARI AND ORS. INSC 1875: Difference between revisions
(Cases) |
(Cases) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
3. In view of the orders passed in appeal relating to SLP No. 25067 of 2005, there is no necessity for dealing with the stand taken by the appellants. | 3. In view of the orders passed in appeal relating to SLP No. 25067 of 2005, there is no necessity for dealing with the stand taken by the appellants. | ||
4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. | |||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
NewPP limit report | NewPP limit report | ||
Cached time: | Cached time: 20240704175118 | ||
Cache expiry: 86400 | Cache expiry: 86400 | ||
Reduced expiry: false | Reduced expiry: false | ||
Complications: | Complications: | ||
CPU time usage: 0. | CPU time usage: 0.000 seconds | ||
Real time usage: 0. | Real time usage: 0.000 seconds | ||
Preprocessor visited node count: 1/1000000 | Preprocessor visited node count: 1/1000000 | ||
Post‐expand include size: 0/2097152 bytes | Post‐expand include size: 0/2097152 bytes | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Transclusion expansion time report | Transclusion expansion time report | ||
100.00% 0.000 1 -total | 100.00% 0.000 1 -total | ||
--><!-- Saved in parser cache with key aklcwuks_wiki-wiki_:pcache:idhash:248741-0!canonical and timestamp | --><!-- Saved in parser cache with key aklcwuks_wiki-wiki_:pcache:idhash:248741-0!canonical and timestamp 20240704175118 and revision id 389269. Rendering was triggered because: edit-page | ||
--> | --> | ||
[[Category:Cases]] | [[Category:Cases]] | ||
Latest revision as of 23:21, 4 July 2024
1. Leave granted.
2. In this present case the appellants have questioned correctness of the order passed by the High Court declining to consider their prayer about the impropriety in the process of re-assessment done. It was their case that they came to know from the return filed by the State government that the re- assessment was done by the Board which was not properly constituted. It is, therefore, their case that re-assessment as done has no legal sanction. The High Court declined to interfere as the connected matters were pending before this Court.
3. In view of the orders passed in appeal relating to SLP No. 25067 of 2005, there is no necessity for dealing with the stand taken by the appellants.
4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.