9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 897 - HC - Income TaxRecalling/rectification of order on the ground that few clerical mistakes have occurred which have bearing on the decision of this Court 2017 (11) TMI 1492 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Held that - No directions for filing the written arguments were ever given to the counsel for the petitioner. Thus, it is factually incorrect that written arguments were to be filed within 15 days by the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, when he came to Courts for filing of written arguments on 24.11.2017, he came to know that order had already been pronounced on 23.11.2017 is belied from the record as the matter was listed for pronouncement of order on 23.11.2017 at 2 30 p.m.. As on merits, while going through paras 3 (I) to (V) of the application, it is clear that infact learned counsel for the petitioner is asking for re-hearing of the matter and a fresh decision in the garb of present application seeking recalling/rectification of the order dated 23.11.2017. The application being devoid of any merit, is dismissed
Issues: Petition for recalling/rectification of order dated 23.11.2017.
The judgment pertains to a petition seeking the recalling/rectification of an order dated 23.11.2017 by the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that clerical mistakes had occurred, affecting the court's decision. The petitioner argued that final arguments were heard on 15.11.2017, and he was directed to file written arguments within 15 days, which he could not do due to his stenographer leaving. However, the court noted that no directions for filing written arguments were given to the petitioner, as indicated in the order dated 15.11.2017 where it was stated that arguments were heard, and judgment was reserved. The court found that the petitioner's assertion of not being able to file written arguments within the specified time was factually incorrect. The court also observed that the petitioner was essentially seeking a re-hearing of the matter under the guise of seeking recalling/rectification of the order. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, stating it lacked merit, but granted the petitioner the liberty to take further legal steps as per the law.
|
