9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard to continue to hold the monies and utilise the same in accordance with law. Learned counsel seeks to draw sustenance from the fact that subsequently and pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on the earlier writ petition, the Recovery Officer had in fact by an order of 22 March 2018 withdrawn all proceedings which had been initiated against the petitioner. It is in aforesaid backdrop that learned counsel contended that the petitioner is not liable to be relegated to the alternative remedy. The Court finds itself unable to sustain the aforesaid submission for the reason that the order of the Recovery Officer does not record any categorical findings on whether the petitioner was or was not liable in terms of the original order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15T of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner however submits that the entire proceedings emanate from the original order passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India [ Board ] in 2013. It was his submission that the aforesaid order was never challenged by the petitioner since in his estimation the Board had clearly held that past Directors of respondent No. 3 cannot be held liable and that they would not be adversely impacted by the decision ultimately taken. It was contended that misconstruing that decision, earlier also the respondents had initiated coercive action against the petitioner which constrained him to prefer a writ petition before this Court. That writ petition being W.P.(C) 4517/2017 ultimately came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was contrary to the provisions made in the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961. That decision however did not record any finding on merits on the principal challenge which was addressed by the petitioner, namely, the petitioner by virtue of being a past Director not being otherwise liable under the original decision of the Board. It had in terms of Para 19.1 thereof observed that it would be open to the Recovery Officer to examine all issues and contentions including that of the petitioner not being liable in terms of the original order passed. The learned Judge had further observed that in case the Recovery Officer find merit in the challenge so raised, it would not continue the proceedings as initiated against the petitioner. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
