File notings are not decisions

Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 405 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 1031 at page 166

37. In Jasbir Singh Chhabra v. State of Punjab [(2010) 4 SCC 192] , this Court held: (SCC p. 209, para 35)

“35. … However, the final decision is required to be taken by the designated authority keeping in view the larger public interest. The notings recorded in the files cannot be made basis for recording a finding that the ultimate decision taken by the Government is tainted by mala fides or is influenced by extraneous considerations.”

 

Abandon plea - new ground

The point not urged before the High Court cannot be argued before this Hon'ble Court (2008) 2 SCC 95 Md Akram Ansari v. Chief Election Officer

 

Whether immovable property falls in the ambit of section 406 ipc

AIR 1962 SC 1821 (RK DALMIA)

2019 SCCONLINE KER 1789 (DAMODAR PANIKKAR)

Section 150 of Income Tax Act, 1961

In ITO v. M/s Neetee Clothing, 2015 SCC OnLine ITAT 11513, ITAT Delhi held that “Further, we concur with the opinion of the ld CIT(A) that the words “any proceeding under this Act by way of appeal reference or revision” cannot be read as to give effect to an order made in any case and for any period and of any person. These words should be so construed as referable to an order made for a particular year or years of that particular assessee and not of others.”

 

 

In DCIT v. Sai Baba Sales, 2016 SCC OnLine ITAT 13642, the ITAT Pune has allowed proceedings ordered by CIT(A) under S.148 r/w S.150 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to identify the correct assessee in a case where it could not be ascertained from the material on record whether income is to be taxed in the hands of the director or the company

 

Landmark Supreme Court is CIT v. Greenworld Corpn., (2009) 7 SCC 69

Independence at every stage of proceeding

CIT v. Greenworld Corpn., (2009) 7 SCC 69 at page 98

55. When a statute provides for different hierarchies providing for forums in relation to passing of an order as also appellate or original order, by no stretch of imagination a higher authority can interfere with the independence which is the basic feature of any statutory scheme involving adjudicatory process.

 

Contradicting the proceedings recorded in an order should be deprecated - consent not given

Rajiv Ranjan Singh ‘Lalan’ (V) v. Union of India, (2005) 11 SCC 312 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 249 at page 313

2. This portion of the order was passed by consent of all the parties. Now it is claimed by the applicant in Crl. MPs Nos. 5519-20 of 2005 that the order is not by consent. However, even in this application it is admitted that his counsel had not objected to this order. After consenting and/or in any case after not objecting submissions are made before learned Acting Chief Justice of the Patna High Court that this Court had no jurisdiction to constitute a Bench and that power to constitute Benches rests only with the Chief Justice. We deprecate this practice of a party obtaining an order by consent and/or not objecting to an order and then making contrary submissions before another forum. If the party had felt aggrieved the proper course was to immediately come back to this Court and get the order clarified by this Court.

Procedure for 340 CrPC proceedings

2018 SCC OnLine Del 8180

J 1

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Yogesh Khanna, J.)

M/s. Bhatia Propcon Pvt. Ltd. .…. Plaintiff

Ms. Rachna Agrawal, Advocate.

v.

Ashok Mehta .…. Defendant

8. The main contention raised by the defendant is since an offence under Section 195(1)(b) is not committed in relation to documents produced or given in evidence hence this application is not maintainable However in H.S. Bedi v. National Highway Authority of India, 227 (2016) DLT 129 it was noted:

"14. Conclusions Section 209 of the Penal Code, 1860, is a salutary provision enacted to preserve the sanctity of the Courts and to safeguard the administration of law by deterring the litigants from making the false claims. However, this provision has been seldom invoked by the Courts. The disastrous result of not invoking Section 209 is that the litigants indulge in false claims because of the confidence that no action will be taken.

14.1 Making a false averment in the pleading pollutes the stream of justice. It is an attempt at inviting the Court into passing a wrong judgment and that is why it has been be treated as an offence.

14.2 False evidence in the vast majority of cases springs out of false pleading, and would entirely banish from the Courts if false pleading could be prevented.

14.3 Unless the judicial system protects itself from such wrongdoing by taking cognizance, directing prosecution, and punishing those found guilty, it will be failing in its duty to render justice to the citizens.

14.4 The justice delivery system has to be pure and should be such that the person who are approaching the Courts must be afraid of making false claims.

14.5 To enable the Courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like false claims have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any Court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail.

14.6 Whenever a false claim is made before a Court, it would be appropriate, in the first instance, to issue a show cause notice to the litigant to show cause as to why a complaint be not made under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for having made a false claim under Section 209 of the Penal Code, 1860 and a reasonable opportunity be afforded to the litigant to reply to the same. The Court may record the evidence, if considered it necessary.

14.7 If the facts are sufficient to return a finding that an offence appears to have been committed and it is expedient in the interests of justice to proceed to make a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the Court need not order a preliminary inquiry. But if they are not and there is suspicion, albeit a strong one, the Court may order a preliminary inquiry. For that purpose, it can direct the State agency to investigate and file a report along with such other evidence that they are able to gather.

14.8 Before making a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the Court shall consider whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint.

14.9 Once it prima facie appears that an offence under Section 209 IPC has been made out and it is expedient in the interest of justice, the Court should not hesitate to make a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

15. This Court hopes that the Courts below shall invoke Section 209 of the Penal Code, 1860 in appropriate cases to prevent the abuse of process of law, secure the ends of justice, keep the path of justice clear of obstructions and give effect to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (supra), S.P. Chengalvaraya Naida v. Jagannath (supra), Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (supra), Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (supra), Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (supra), Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) and Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India (supra)."

9. Hence in the circumstances as the pleadings are wholly contradictory to stand taken by the defendant in reply to legal notice and prima facie it amounts to making false averments in pleadings. Thus, a show cause notice is hereby issued to the defendant as to why a complaint be not made under Section 340 Cr P C for having made a false averment in the written statement, under Section 209 of the IPC and the defendant is directed to reply within 6 weeks from today.

Mr. Atul Bandhu, Advocate with defendant in person.

CS(COMM) 928/2016