2014 (9) TMI 1198 - HC - Income Tax

Review petition - Attachment orders - recovery proceedings - regularization of the sale seeked - disputed property was under the attachment of the Income Tax Department, which was sold for recovery of the outstanding dues of the Hindu Undivided Family of one Kirodimull Lohariwala - HELD THAT - The income tax authorities in this application for review, also, maintains their stand that when the prayer for regularization of the sale was not granted by order dated 8th September, 1965 and this Court directed to sell the property in the best price, the sale in favour of Vasudeva was not final. In our view, there are errors apparent on the face of record and the order dated 19th October, 2012 has to be reviewed. A Court reviewing an earlier order can pass an order in favour of the applicant. There is an error apparent on the face of record. An error apparent on the face of record cannot be defined scientifically, precisely and exhaustively. It should be determined considering the facts of each individual case. In the case in hand error is apparent and self-evident. A proper reading of the order dated 17th August, 2001, in M.A.T. no. 87 of 1999 reveals and it could not only reveal that the Appeal Court affirmed the order dated 20th November, 1998. Moreover, the private respondents in the application for special leave against order dated 17th August, 2001, inter alia, proceeded on the basis that the appeal against the said order was dismissed. Therefore, the Vasudevas are not entitled from reagitating the dispute, which has been subject of a judicial decision earlier. The Vasudevas cannot turn around and take a contrary stand when the other party had accepted their reading and acted upon to their detriment.

Summary

Issues:
1. Review of judgment and order dated 19th October, 2012 in F.M.A. No. 1006 of 2010.
2. Validity of the sale of disputed property by the Union of India to V.N. Vasudeva.
3. Interpretation of various court orders and their implications on the disputed property.
4. Application of the power of review by the writ court.
5. Errors apparent on the face of record leading to the need for a review.

Issue 1: Review of judgment and order dated 19th October, 2012:
The application sought a review of the judgment and order dated 19th October, 2012 passed in F.M.A. No. 1006 of 2010. The Court analyzed the series of litigations and events related to the disputed property, emphasizing the chequered history of the case. The Court found errors apparent on the face of the record, leading to the decision to review the judgment. The power of the Court to review its order in favor of the applicant was acknowledged, and the order dated 19th October, 2012 was set aside.

Issue 2: Validity of the sale of disputed property:
The case revolved around the sale of the disputed property, premises no. 43, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi, by the Union of India to V.N. Vasudeva in 1964. The Court delved into the history of the property's attachment by the Income Tax Department for recovery of dues. Various court orders questioned the validity of the sale, with a focus on whether the sale to Vasudeva was final or not. The Court highlighted Vasudeva's role as an advocate and tenant of the property, raising concerns about the propriety of the sale to him.

Issue 3: Interpretation of court orders on the disputed property:
The judgment analyzed multiple court orders dating back to 1965, including directions by different judges regarding the disputed property. The Court examined the implications of these orders on the legal status of the property and the rights of the parties involved. Discrepancies in the interpretation of previous orders led to a detailed review of the case history to determine the correct course of action.

Issue 4: Application of the power of review by the writ court:
The Court discussed the power of the writ court to review its orders, emphasizing the need to correct mistakes apparent on the record. The judgment highlighted the application of the Code of Civil Procedure in cases of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court underscored the importance of ensuring a proper review process to rectify errors and make necessary corrections based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Issue 5: Errors apparent on the face of record necessitating a review:
The judgment detailed errors apparent on the face of the record, leading to the decision to review the case. The Court explained that such errors could not be precisely defined but must be determined based on individual case facts. The Court found errors in the interpretation of previous orders and the subsequent judgments, necessitating a review to rectify the mistakes and provide a fair resolution. The decision to allow the review and set aside the previous judgment aimed to address these errors and ensure a just outcome for the parties involved.