9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the respondents in the wake of search and seizure action that had commenced on 15.09.2009; and (iv) to grant such other relief as is found admissible under law and equity. We may notice the background facts in brief. The present writ petition has been filed challenging a search conducted by the Income Tax Department on 15/16th September, 2009. After the exchange of affidavits, the matter as to whether the petitioners are entitled to have the copy of satisfaction note for conducting the search came up for hearing before the Court. This point was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yatindra Singh and one of us (Prakash Krishna, J.). After hearing the counsel for the parties at length, the judgment was delivered on 4th of November, 2011. We have been informed that against the aforesaid judgment the department has gone up in appeal before the Supreme Court and the matter is pending before the Apex Court. It may also be placed on record that the writ petition is required to be heard and decided on other points and it is still pending consideration before this Court. The present application with the reliefs already r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner is entitled to see reasons for search, is reserved. The interim order in this case as well as in the connected cases are extended till the next date of listing." The submission in short is that by the order sought to be reviewed, the Court has decided other issues which were not argued by the petitioner's counsel. Therefore, the conclusions recorded in sub-paragraphs - A and B of paragraph-130 of the judgment sought to be reviewed are beyond the scope of the order dated 8th December, 2010, vide para-14 of the review application. Opposing the prayer, Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the department, submits that the order dated 4.2.2011 was passed after hearing the arguments at full length of the learned counsel for the parties. The submission is that in the said order the Court has met and considered all the arguments which were urged by the petitioner. According to him, it is now no longer open to the petitioner to say anything otherwise. The Court was taken through the various paragraphs of the judgment dated 4.2.2011 to show as to what were the arguments which were advanced by the petitioner. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 wherein the Apex Court while dismissing the review application has observed as follows: "5. We cannot help saying that this was wholly improper. We are not saying that a Judge is in fallible. It is possible that a view which ultimately appeals to a Judge in coming to his conclusion is erroneous. That by itself can afford no ground for review. But what is improper is to assume and assert as to what a Judge's view is in making a particular order when the order pronounced does not set it out and to make references to what Judges say in course of arguments and make that a ground for rehearing. 6. Judges of this Court cannot be dragged into a controversy as to whether the statements ascribed to them are correct, or express correctly and fully what they had in view. What may have been said or expressed may often enough be in the course of tentative loud-thinking and may reflect only very partially what the Judges had in view. What ultimately weighs with the Judges in pronouncing the order, when doing so without giving reasons, may often be not reflected in what is tentatively and openly ex pressed. Judges cannot be drawn into controversy over such matters. It is not consistent with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error (Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhu Sudan Chowdhri v. Chandrabati Chowdhrain.) That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an appellate court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment." Emphasis supplied. The principle is well settled that the statement that a fact as to what transpired at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
