{"id":79,"date":"2008-08-07T10:41:11","date_gmt":"2008-08-07T10:41:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=79"},"modified":"2008-08-07T10:41:11","modified_gmt":"2008-08-07T10:41:11","slug":"shiv-kant-jha-vs-uoi-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/shiv-kant-jha-vs-uoi-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Shiv Kant Jha vs. UOI (Supreme Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/dlmonitor\/download.php?t=f&#038;i=38\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.itatonline.org\/images\/download.gif?w=605\" class=\"alignright\" border=\"0\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Against the judgement of the Supreme Court in <strong>UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan<\/strong> 263 ITR 706, a review petition was filed. That petition was dismissed by a division bench of 2 judges. Upon that dismissal, a curative petition was filed. That curative petition has been dismissed by a bench of 5 judges. <\/p>\n<p>Note: For the law on whether <strong>Azadi Bachao Andolan<\/strong> can prevail against <strong>McDowell vs. CTO<\/strong> 159 ITR 148 (SC), see <a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=50\"><strong>CIT vs. Lazor Syntex &#038; CIT vs. Akshay Textiles Trading<\/strong><\/a> (Bombay High Court).<\/p>\n<p><!--\n\n\n\n\n\n\/\/--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Against the judgement of the Supreme Court in <strong>UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan<\/strong> 263 ITR 706, a review petition was filed. That petition was dismissed by a division bench of 2 judges. Upon that dismissal, a curative petition was filed. That curative petition has been dismissed by a bench of 5 judges.<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/shiv-kant-jha-vs-uoi-supreme-court\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-79","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=79"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}