9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (6) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by a learned single judge in 0. P. No. 3709 of 1990. The attack in the original petition was against section 44AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was assailed as ultra vires the Constitution of India and lacking in legislative competence. There is an earlier decision of this court in P. Kunhammed Kutty Haji v. Union of India [1989] 176 ITR 481, wherein an identical challenge was repelled. The said judgment was affirmed by a Bench of this court in Aboobacker (T. K.) v. Union of India [1989] 177 ITR 358. In 0. P. No. 3709 of 1990, the learned single judge noticed the earlier Bench decision in A boobacker's case [1989] 177 ITR 358 and dismissed the original petition. Review Petition No. 101 of 1990, filed in the said original petition was als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court of India against the judgment of this court in W. A. No. 393 of 1990 (see [1992] 194 ITR 449), will lie. Article 134A of the Constitution reads thus : " 134A. Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. Every High Court, passing or making a judgment, decree, final order, or sentence, referred to in clause (1) of article 132 or clause (1) of article 133, or clause (1) of article 134, (a) may, if it deems fit so to do, on its own motion ; and (b) shall, if an oral application is made, by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately after the passing or making of such judgment, decree, final order or sentence, determine, as soon as may be after such passing or making, the question whether a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o grant a certificate on its own motion. If any party is aggrieved by the judgment, an oral application should be made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately after the judgment is delivered. If it is not so done, any application, filed at any later point of time, is not maintainable. The said view of ours is fortified by Bench decisions of various High Courts. Reckitt and Coleman of India v. Fifth Industrial Tribunal [1980] 84 CWN 657 (Cal), Keshava S. Jamkhandi v. Ramachandra S. Jamkhandi, AIR 1981 Kar 97 [FB] and State of Orissa v. Sashi' Bhusan Kar [1985] Crl. L. J. 1725 (Orissa). In the light of the above decision, we hold that C. M. P. No. 2844 of 1991 is not maintainable. We dismiss the said petition. No question of con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
