Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2008 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (9) TMI 646 - HC - Indian LawsWaiver of interest allowed by Settlement Commission - applications filed by the petitioner for rectification of certain mistakes by Settlement Commission - Held that:- In this case, the Settlement Commission has rejected Ext.P2 on the ground that the issue raised is a debatable issue. Inferior courts and Tribunals are bound to follow the decision of the Constitution Bench in view of the law relating to precedents and also article 141 of the Constitution of India. So, the rejection of Ext.P2 application is unjustified. Accordingly, Ext.P3 order to the extent it rejects Ext.P2 is set aside and the said application is remitted to the 1st respondent for disposal, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Ext.P2(A) application has been rejected on the ground of limitation. In limited circumstances, to correct patent mistakes inherent jurisdiction is also conceded to Courts and Tribunals. But, on the facts of the case, the point involved is not one, where this Court should compel the Settlement Commission to entertain a time barred petition. Normally, a petition barred by time limit has to be rejected. Such an order cannot be described as an order which is ultravires or one passed without jurisdiction. In the result, the challenge against the rejection of Ext.P2(A) is repelled.
|