9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or stay of recovery of disputed tax. On the complaint that the appellate authority was not passing orders on exhibit P7 and the assessing authority is proceeding with recovery of the arrears of tax due, he filed O.P. No. 7943 of 1988 seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash exhibit P3 order and exhibits P4 and P5, demand notices. In the alternative, he sought a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose of exhibit P6, appeal, and exhibit P7, stay petition. Another relief which he sought was an interim order restraining respondents 4 and 5 from taking revenue recovery proceedings against him on the basis of exhibit P3 order. 2.. The learned single Judge who heard the matter was of the opinion that the assessment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not interfere for the only reason that the judgment under appeal was not right. The possibility of an alternative view by itself is no reason why the appellate jurisdiction shall be invoked or exercised. These propositions are well-settled. We need refer only to a few of the number of precedents in this regard. 4.. Asquith, L.J., observed in [1948] 1 All ER 343 [Bellenden (formerly Satterthwaite) v. Satterthwaite]: "We are here concerned with a judicial discretion, and it is of the essence of such a discretion that on the same evidence two different minds might reach widely different decisions without either being appealable. It is only where the decision exceeds the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible, and is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken by Justice Nambiyar cannot be said to be wrong." We do not think that it is necessary to multiply authorities in support of this accepted but of forgotten principle. 8.. We do not find any plea that the learned single Judge was clearly wrong or that he exercised discretion in an arbitrary or perverse manner in dismissing the original petition. It is not for this Court to interfere in appeal even on the assumption most favourable to the appellant that we would, perhaps, have taken a different view had we or either of us heard the original petition initially. 9.. There is no likelihood of any prejudice to the appellant in this case, since the application for stay is still pending before the appellate authority. It has not so far bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
