9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The applicants sought to be included as parties in a judgment passed by the High Court, claiming they were necessary parties due to being successful bidders at an auction conducted by the Income Tax Department. The main issue was whether the applicants should be allowed to review and recall the order passed by the High Court in a specific civil application.
Judgment Summary: 1. The applicants filed two applications seeking to review and recall an order passed by the High Court in a civil application. They argued that as successful bidders at an auction conducted by the Income Tax Department, they should have been parties in the main petition. The applicants contended that the petitioner was aware of their interest in the property and should have impleaded them. They referred to provisions of the Income Tax Act to support their claim that the petition should not have been entertained without their involvement. They also cited previous court decisions to strengthen their argument. 2. The original petitioner and the Income Tax Department opposed the applications, stating that the sale had not been completed, and no sale certificate had been issued to the applicants. They argued that the dispute primarily concerned the petitioner and the Income Tax Department, not the applicants. 3. The Court acknowledged the legal principles cited by both parties but found that they were not directly applicable to the current case. The Court noted that the issues raised by the applicants regarding the interpretation of certain provisions were debatable and did not fall within the scope of a review. Additionally, the Court emphasized that until the sale was confirmed and a certificate issued, the applicants were merely offerers and not directly affected parties in the dispute. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Court concluded that the applications for review were not justified. Therefore, both applications were rejected, and no costs were awarded. Separate Judgement: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
