9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t along with Shri Ashok Kumar for the respondents. By means of the present application, the applicant/petitioner has sought the following four reliefs:- (i) to hold that the writ petitions as aforesaid are open for decision on all the issues raised therein except the right of the petitioners to look into the records related to authorisation of search; (ii) to direct for listing of the writ petitions at an early date as is convenient to the Hon'ble Court; (iii) in the meantime to grant stay from further proceedings that have been initiated 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t proceedings." Sri Ashish Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of the order sheet dated 8.12.2010 the subsequent order passed on 04.02.2011 should be construed to the points as noted in the order sheet dated 8th of December, 2012. He submits to that extent, the judgment and order dated 4.2.2011 be modified and reviewed. He further submits that the above order sheet be read along with the entry in the order sheet dated 6.1.2011. The said entry is reproduced below:- "Heard counsel for the parties. Orders on the point, whether the petitioner 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 depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner now wants to urge is correct. It is duty of the Court to deal with all the arguments/points raised by the learned counsel for the parties. If the petitioner has chosen to take a stand during the course of the argument, we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot take a 'U' turn and say that the judgment may be reviewed as the points for determination were limited. At this stage, we may consider the few decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the respondents. Reference was made to Associated Tubewells Ltd. vs R.B. Gujarmal Modi: AIR 1957 SC 742 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riniwas Nayak (supra) is reproduced below:- " `Judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation.' (Per Lord Atkinson in Somasundaram Chetty v. Subramanian Chetty.) We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well settled that 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
