9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reading of the order dated 17th August, 2001, in M.A.T. no. 87 of 1999 reveals and it could not only reveal that the Appeal Court affirmed the order dated 20th November, 1998. Moreover, the private respondents in the application for special leave against order dated 17th August, 2001, inter alia, proceeded on the basis that the appeal against the said order was dismissed. Therefore, the Vasudevas are not entitled from reagitating the dispute, which has been subject of a judicial decision earlier. The Vasudevas cannot turn around and take a contrary stand when the other party had accepted their reading and acted upon to their detriment. - R.V.W. No. 272 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 24-9-2014 - Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee AND Justice Asim Kumar Mondal For the petitioners : Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, Mr. L.K. Gupta, Mr. Y.Z. Dastur, Ms. Kabita Mukherjee, Mr. Manas Dasgupta. For the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 : Mr. Jayanta Mitra, Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, Mr. S. Chowdhury, Mr. S. Bhattacharyya, Mr. P. Chowdhury. For the respondent nos. 2(a) to 2(c), 9, 10(a) and 10(b) : Mr. Dipayan Choudhury, Ms. S. Ghosh. For the respondent nos. 5, 7 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt before putting the disputed property for sale and, also, for leave to complete the sale of the disputed property in favour of V.N.Vasudeva. On 1st April, 1965, a sale certificate under Section 95 of the Punjab Law Revenue Act, 1887, was issued by the District Collection Officer certifying the same in favour of V.N.Vasudeva. The sale was under the Punjab Law Revenue Act, 1887, to realise the arrears under the Income Tax Act. On 8th September, 1965, Ajit Nath Ray, J., (as the Chief Justice of India then was) while dealing with the said application of the Union of India, through the Income Tax Officer, Raigarh Circle, inter alia, directed as under: It is ordered that the said applicant union be at liberty to put up the Delhi property being the joint moveable and immoveable property, including premises No. 43, Prithiviraj Road, New Delhi, for sale either by public auction or by private treaty to the best purchaser or purchasers that can be got for the same. On 24th December, 1985 a writ petition was moved in which the said V.N.Vasudeva was, also, a party. The said writ petition was registered as Civil Order no. 18500 (W) of 1985. S.C. Sen, J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain that by the aforesaid order dated 17th August, 2001, the order of Ajoy Nath Ray, J., has been set aside, these applicants are of the opinion that the order dated 20th November, 1998 was upheld. An application for Special Leave was filed before the Supreme Court of India against the said judgment and order dated August 10, 2004 by Vasudevas. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India. Upon dismissal of the said Special Leave Petition, the said Vasudevas filed an application in Civil Order no. 18500(W) of 1985 before Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J., treating that the said civil order as pending. The Income Tax department in their affidavit-in-opposition to such application, categorically, admitted that the disputed property has been under attachment as sale in favour of the Vasudeva was set aside by the order dated 8th September, 1965. The Civil Order no. 18500(W) of 1985 came up for hearing before Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J., and by order dated 31st March, 2006 holding, inter alia, that the division bench in the order dated 17th August, 2001, set aside the order dated 7th August, 1998 of Ajoy Nath Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... altry sum of ₹ 300/- (Rupees three hundred) only. It appears to us that Ajit Nath Ray, J., (as the Chief Justice of India then was) was persuaded by the fact that a lawyer could not purchase his clients property and, therefore, His Lordship refused to condone the omission on the part of the income tax department for taking leave from this Court before putting the Delhi property for sale and refused to grant leave to income tax department to complete the purported sale in favour of V.N. Vasudeva, as prayed for, by the income tax department. We are of the opinion that the order dated 31st March, 2006, was erroneous when the Hon ble Single Judge proceeded to hold that the division bench in M.A.T. no. 87 of 1999 set aside the order dated 20th November, 1998 and restored that of 26th October, 1990. The Vasudevas in their Special Leave Petition against order dated 17th August, 2001 in MAT No. 87 of 1999 had accepted that the order of Ajoy Nath Nath, J., (as the Chief Justice then was) dated 20th November, 1998, was upheld. The income tax authorities in this application for review, also, maintains their stand that when the prayer for regulari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
