9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of nearly 14 years. Total lack of diligence makes it too late for the petitioner to find fault with the order; at this distant point of time. 2. That apart the petition must fail even on the principle of estoppel and acquiescence. In consequence of the impugned order of transfer, the assessment proceedings were completed by the C.T.O. (Intelligence), Mysore, on March 26, 1985. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the petitioner appealed to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the same, set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for a fresh assessment. A second order of assessment was thereafter made by the C.T.O. (Intelligence) on June 14, 1991. Even this order was questioned in appeal by the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere at the instance of a party, whose conduct is not free from blemish or who has taken a chance to secure a favourable judgment, but having failed to do so, somersaults to assail the orders on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Ample support for this proposition is available from a Division Bench decision of this Court in C.Y. Parthasarathy v. Syndicate of the Mysore University, Mysore [1994] 4 Kar LJ 702 where the legal position on the subject was summed up thus: It is true, that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, of the parties where it does not otherwise inhere in the authority concerned; but it is equally true that the High Court can while exercising its extraordinary and discretionary powers under article 226 of the Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge to the same till it had taken its chance for a favourable order and then assail the validity thereof at its convenience. The principle stated in the Division Bench decision mentioned earlier is applicable to cases where the error sought to be pointed out touches upon the jurisdiction of the authority. As a matter of fact, the case before the Division Bench was similar to the one sought to be made out by the petitioner. There also the very jurisdiction of the enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry had been called in question but after the petitioner had taken his chance to secure a favourable order. The court did not permit that to be done, on the principle that a party, who acquiesces in the jurisdiction of the authority or sleeps over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
