2025 (5) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... K. Srivastav a/w Ms. Riya Soni, Mr. Hitanshu Jain and Ms. Malika Mondal i/b. S. K. Srivastav & Co. For the Respondent-Revenue: Mr. Karan Adik. PC.:- (PER M. S. SONAK, J.) 1. Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. After condoning the delay in instituting this review petition, we have taken up this review petition for hearing. 4. Mr. Sriv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rned counsel for the Petitioners. She made precisely similar submissions in support of the petition. Upon considering such submissions, we may have found no favour with them. However, that does not detract from how ably she placed the Petitioners' case before this Court. 6. In this review petition, her senior, Mr. Srivastav, reiterates these contentions. However, this alone cannot be a ground for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ambuj A. Kasliwal & Ors. 2021 3 SCC 549. 9. In Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised to defeat the mandatory requirement of statutory provisions. Mohammed Akmam Uddin Ahmed & Ors. (supra) does not consider the binding precedent Kotak .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X