|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1244 Records
-
2014 (8) TMI 1125 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Disallowance of interest paid - interest not allowable as part of the cost of shares - Held that:- As already held by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mithlesh Kumari (1973 (2) TMI 11 - DELHI High Court) the actual cost of capital asset should include interest paid on borrowed amounts at the time of purchase. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Trishul Investment Ltd.[2007 (7) TMI 252 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that interest paid on money borrowed for acquiring the shares, would partake the character of cost of shares. There are host of other judgments also and there is no dispute principally, to include interest on borrowals as cost of shares, when the said shares are sold. Since assessee is not in the business of purchase and sale of shares, investment in shares and subsequent sale thereof, was shown under the head “Capital Gains” and since there was short term capital gains, the same was disclosed as such, after claiming interest paid as cost of shares. We do not find any reason to differ from the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1124 - SUPREME COURT
Arbitration and Conciliation - awards challenged - Held that:- Here is a case where arbitral awards were given in favour of the Appellant way back in April and June, 2006. However, the Appellant is yet to reap the benefits thereof. Respondent No. 1 challenged these awards by filing applications Under Section 34 of the Act. When these proceedings were pending, the Respondents themselves came out with the proposal to negotiate and try to amicably settle the matters, keeping in view the otherwise laudable decision taken by PWD to settle such disputes as is clear from the letter dated 02.08.2008.
Negotiations took place thereafter. Though the Appellant had agreed to forgo substantial part of the award in terms of interest etc., the talks failed at that time as the Respondents wanted 10% reduction in the principal amount as well, whereas the Appellant was conceding to give up only 5% of the principal amount. Be, as it may, the Appellant agreed to give further concessions in the Court when the matter came on 09.04.2011 vide his 3 memos dated 6.4.2011 filed on that date. These memos show that the Appellant had given the said offer due to the acute financial crisis he was suffering from as he wanted to satisfy his creditors including his bankers to whom he owed substantial amounts. Alas, even after the settlement was fructified, resulting into passing of agreed orders, it has resulted into legal tangle even thereafter, and the Appellant has not been able to get even the said agreed amount. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the consent decree passed by the learned District Judge. Such a consent decree operates as an estoppel and was binding on the parties from which the Respondents could not wriggle out by taking an after thought plea that its lawyer was not authorised to enter into such a settlement.
These appeals are accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the consent decrees dated 28.04.2011 passed by the trial court are restored.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1123 - ITAT COCHIN
Revision u/s 263 - assessee claimed deduction u/s 10B instead of sec. 10A - AO without considering the facts granted exemption u/s 10B - technical mistake in claiming deduction u/s 10B - Held that:- Though the assessee made the claim before the CIT that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 10A, the claim of sec. 10A was not examined by the lower authorities and the CIT straight away directed the AO to withdraw the exemption made u/s 10B, which is not proper. We are inclined to direct the AO to decide the issue afresh.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1122 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Commercial Training or Coaching - principle of judicial discipline - retrospective amendment was made Vide Section 76 of the Finance Act, 2010 - the decision in the case of I2IT PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI [2014 (9) TMI 345 - CESTAT MUMBAI] contested - Held that: - the appeal is admitted on substantial question of law.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1121 - ITAT MUMBAI
Depreciation on machinery - ownership of machinery - Held that: - the transfer of asset to the assessee‟s name is not a prerequisite so long as the asset in question is finally used and assessee is constructive and beneficial owner of the same. Therefore, the CIT (A) has rightly adjudicated the issue under consideration and the decision taken by him is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference - decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1120 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Arbitration and Conciliation - reliefs claimed to hold the directors personally liable for their alleged prejudicial conduct against the interest of the company - Held that:- The majority directors are already held to be necessary parties. In such derivative action, if the reliefs are claimed to hold the directors personally liable for their alleged prejudicial conduct against the interest of the company, they are joined in the company petition for their fiduciary relationship as directors with company and such reliefs cannot be granted in their absence. Since they are not parties to the arbitration agreement, they cannot be referred to arbitration. They therefore, cannot be bound by the result of the arbitration. The Court is, therefore, of the view that the CLB has not committed any error in holding that neither the company nor the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 of the company petition are parties common to the arbitration agreement. In view of such conclusion, the arguments raised by both the sides and the judgments relied on the question of issue Estoppel, on the question that since other agreements are connected with joint venture and therefore, the parties to such agreements could be referred to arbitration or they could be said to be claiming through parties to arbitration agreement, are not required to be considered. Similarly, the question about the intention of the parties to relate the dispute to all agreements is also not required to be considered.
In view of the joint venture agreement, reference of part of the matter to the arbitration would not amount to bifurcation of subject matter of the company petition. However, when the Court finds that entire matter before the CLB is not referable to the arbitration, even if the parties are taken to be bound by JVA, it is not permissible to bifurcate the matter and the cause of action for referring the matter to the arbitration.
In any case, in the context of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. Jayesh H. Pandya and Another reported in MA: (2003 (4) TMI 435 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)it is not permissible to make reference for part of the matter
For the reasons stated above, no interference is called for in the impugned order in exercise of the powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Rule is discharged.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1119 - ITAT MUMBAI
Exemption under section 11 - violation of section 11(5) - Held that:- The act of the assessee in making fixed deposit with Tata Motors Ltd. was an unintended act arising out of bonafide mistake/belief and for this reason assessee cannot be held to be disentitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act.
“Key Information Memorandum” a charitable trust/Wakfs or a society established under the relevant laws and authorized to invest in mutual fund schemes is one of the entity who could apply for the same. Keeping in view these provisions, the said investment by the assessee shall not in violation of section 11(5), therefore, there is no violation on account of that deposit.
Depreciation to assessee trust allowed on the basis of the fact that will not tantamount to double deduction.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1118 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Invoking provisions of Sec. 145(3) - trading addition - ITAT has come to a conclusion that in the immediate past assessment year, the ITAT itself had applied GP rate of 2.60% whereas in the present year under consideration, the GP rate has been declared as 4.85% - Held that:- ITAT, after analyzing the material on record and on appreciation of evidence, deleted the addition. The Officer, appearing on behalf of the revenue was unable to contend as to what are the distinguishing features in between the two assessment years i.e. immediate preceding year vis-a-vis the present year. He further failed to point out other/additional defects which were not in the assessment year 2007-08. The assessment for the assessment year 2007-08 has become final and attained finality as the officer was unable to point out as to whether further appeal was preferred by the Revenue before this Court or not. Thus, in our view, the ITAT has reached its conclusion on appreciation of evidence.
Invoking provisions of Sec. 145(3) or making/non-making of trading addition is essentially a finding of fact and the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, in similar cases, have come to the conclusion that if the addition/deletion is on the basis of appreciation of evidence, then no question of law, much less substantial question of law, can be said to be involved in a case like this.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1116 - ITAT DELHI
Entitlement to deduction u/s 54 - second residential unit purchased by assessee - Held that:- We find that this issue no more res integra in view of various decisions referred by the ITAT in the case of Meher R. Surti (2015 (4) TMI 52 - ITAT MUMBAI ).
Further, we find that amendment has been brought in section 54 to limit the exemption u/s 54 to one residential unit, which is applicable from A.Y. 2015-16. therefore, for the year under consideration the assessee was entitled for exemption u/s 54 in respect of more than one flat. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Disallowance of consultancy charges - consultancy income received - Held that:- The assessee had earned consultancy income of 60,11,330/- from the business of real estate. In order to finalise the deal, the assessee met with many persons like professionals and other persons, who had the knowledge about such place and influence over the local residents. Ld. Counsel in course of hearing clarified that in Himachal Pradesh, sale and purchase of land cannot take place without the intervention of Himachal people and therefore the assessee had to take consultancy and advisory services in the matter of land acquisition from Mr. Surinder Pal and Mr. Sachin Shridhar. The necessary confirmations along with income-tax particulars were filed before the assessing officer in respect of Mr. Sachin Shridhar for payment of ₹ 9,65,000/-. Necessary confirmation along with affidavit, bank statement and acknowledgement of the ITR from Mr. Sachin Shridhar was also filed. Similarly, in respect of Mr. Surinder Pal, all evidences were filed. Therefore, there was no basis for making any disallowance.
As regards the commission expenses, a sum of ₹ 14,41,070/- was paid to M/s Starlit Infrastructure Ltd. for the services rendered by them during FY 2007-08. Copy of the confirmation along with bills, affidavit and income-tax return for AY 2008-09 was also filed. The services of M/s Starlit Infrastructure Ltd. were taken for purchase and consolidation of land. Payment of commission was made directly on assessee’s instructions by M/s SKIL Himachal Infrastructure & Tourism Ltd. to M/s Starlit Infrastructure Ltd. The said party had charged service tax and had also paid necessary income-tax on the aid income. Confirmations from M/s SKIL Himachal Infrastructure & Tourism Ltd. was also filed. The other payments were to architect which could not be disputed in case of real estate deal, as the same was paid for preparation of detailed architectural and utility drawings. Copies of the bills were also filed.
As regards the payment to Mr. Sant Kumar Sharma of ₹ 55,742/-, the copy of confirmations could not be provided as he died on 9-6-2010. However, assessee filed copy of his return of income for A.Y. 2008-09.
In regard to payment to Shri Ravinder Kumar Sharma of ₹ 55,642/-, assessee filed copy of confirmation, bill & income tax return.
Considering the overwhelming evidence on record, we do not find any reason to doubt the genuineness of assessee’s claim as also the purpose for which the services were taken by the assessee for the consultancy income received from M/s SKIL Himachal Infrastructure & Tourism Ltd. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1115 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Decree being passed for non-deposit, interest - Held that:- The appeal ought to be disposed of by the following order :-
i). The impugned order is confirmed with a modification only to the extent that in the event of a decree being passed for non-deposit, interest shall be computed at 4% p.a. and not at 12% p.a., as prayed in the suit. In that event for the balance interest of 8% p.a., the appellant shall be entitled to unconditional leave to defend.
ii). The time to deposit the amount is extended upto and including 31.10.2014.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1114 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Doctrine of non-traverse - evidence - seizure of Betel-Nuts - - Held that: - On the basis of the evidence, it appears that the aggregate value of the goods at the time of seizure could not have been more than ₹ 26,65,600/-. The Seizure List was prepared on 7th February, 1999. The order of adjudication in favour of the plaintiff was passed on 16th December, 1999. The Adjudicating Authority directed unconditional release of 33320 kgs. of betel nuts valued at ₹ 47,95,200/- in favour of the plaintiffs and in case the goods have already been sold by auction, the sale proceeds thereof would be refunded to the rightful claimants. The order of adjudication does not disclose the basis of the valuation of the seized articles and from the order itself, the valuation of the betel nuts at ₹ 47,95,200/- is not discernible.
After the seizure is declared to be illegal by the adjudicating authority in absence of any rebuttable evidence and contrary evidence to dislodge the testimony of the witness, I feel that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of ₹ 26,65,600/- and accordingly a decree is passed for the aforesaid sums. However, during the pendency of the proceeding the plaintiff has received a sum of ₹ 12,31,200/- on January 18, 2001.
The plaintiff shall be entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 8% per annum on and from 1st January, 2000 till December, 2000 on ₹ 26,65,600/- and thereafter on the remaining balance at the same rate of 8% per annum till realization - decided in favor of plaintiff.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1113 - ITAT DELHI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowing the commission payment - inaccurate particulars of income - Held that:- In the instant case, when the AO has not disputed the particulars of income furnished by the assessee nor he has disputed the amount on which commission is claimed to have been paid by the assessee, the disallowance on the ground of challenging the capabilities of Ms. Divya Khanna to provide tips for purchasing shares etc. is merely a subjective findings which are not sustainable. These days it is a matter of common knowledge that persons of 20 years of age are capable enough to advice and carry on such business even on their own.
When the AO himself has allowed the commission of ₹ 5,00,000/- having been paid to Mr. Sanjeev Khurana, merely disallowing the commission payment on the basis of subjective satisfaction without calling upon the assessee as to what type of advice and know-how has been provided by Ms. Divya Khanna to earn the business income on which tax has already been paid, the penalty cannot be imposed nor does it amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. So, in the given circumstances, we are unable to hold that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income for making payment of ₹ 6,00,000/- to Ms. Divya Khanna so as to attract the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, hence we hereby delete the penalty by allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1112 - ITAT BANGALORE
Disallowance of legal fee - Held that:- The assessee was already exploiting the mining lease and doing business by virtue of the lease. The litigation expenditure incurred by the assessee to defend the suits did not in any way create a new asset nor help in improving the lease in such a manner so as to give it an advantage which was in the capital field. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sree Meenakshi Mill Ltd. [1966 (9) TMI 34 - SUPREME Court] has clearly held that taxability of expenditure must depend on the purpose of the legal proceeding, in relation to the business and cannot be computed by the final outcome of the proceedings. We are therefore, of the opinion that the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the expenses of litigation expenses are revenue in nature.
Claim of mines development expenditure - Held that:- CIT(A) had not looked into the aspect whether expenditure having been incurred long back, could be allowed on a piecemeal basis in subsequent years. He has simply mentioned that the assessee’s ground of appeal was allowable based on the facts of the case, contents of the assessment order and written submissions furnished by the assessee. He has also not discussed as to how the assessee could have raised an alternative claim before him, when all along he had made the claim before the AO u/s 35E of the Act. We are therefore, of the opinion, the matter needs a fresh look by the CIT(A). We therefore, set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) on this aspect and remit the issue back to the learned CT(A) for disposal in accordance with law.
Addition made to the closing stock - Held that:- There is no dispute that unprocessed lumps and fines were valued by the assessee at ₹ 50-/ per MT, whereas the AO considered the whole of the stock as processed and valued it at ₹ 390/- per MT. Rate of ₹ 390/-per MT was arrived by the AO by adding expenditure in the nature of afforestation expenses, mines office expenses,, road maintenance charges, repairs and maintenance, plot transportation and loading charges as part of the cost. There is nothing on record to show how the assessee had worked out the value of ₹ 50/- per MT for the sub-grade Iron Ore. Addition made by the AO was not only on account of difference in valuation but also for difference in quantity. Learned CIT(A) deleted the whole of the disallowance except for enhancing the value of the sub-grade Iron Ore in stock from 50/- per MT to ₹ 80/- per MT. No reason has been given by him for enhancing the value and no finding has been given as to whether there indeed was any substandard stock. He has also not addressed the issue regarding difference in closing stock quantity, vis-à-vis what was returned by the assessee. In other words, learned CIT(A) in our opinion, has not properly adjudicated the issue regarding the addition made to the closing stock. We are therefore, of the opinion that the matter requires a fresh look by the CIT(A)
-
2014 (8) TMI 1111 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI BENCH
Acts of oppression and mismanagement - petitioners under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Held that:- Valuation of the property of the company in the form of resort was done by the valuer appointed as per the direction of this hon'ble Board and sufficient efforts were made by appointing property dealer to sell the property at a price higher than the aforesaid valuation by the valuer so that the proceeds after payment of the liabilities of the company could be distributed amongst the petitioners and the respondents in the ratio of their shareholding. However, no buyer could offer the price higher than the aforesaid valuation done by the valuer. Not only this, neither the petitioners nor the respondents are also willing to buy out each other. Apart from this, the proposal of division of the property, i.e., resort in the ratio of the shareholding of the petitioners and the respondents by way of maps given through C. A. No. 416 of 2011 were also objected by the respondents as the said division would result in stoppage of business operation of the company and even reasonable price may not be received out of the sale of unviable portions of the land/property. Under these facts and circumstances, it is considered appropriate in the interest of the company that the business operations be continued with the co-operation of the petitioners and the respondents and both the petitioners and the respondents to get the property valued again as per the current market conditions and to sell the property at reasonable price for distribution of proceeds in the ratio of their shareholding after paying off the liabilities.
The business of the respondent-company should continue with better co-ordination and co-operation amongst the petitioners and the respondents and, hence, it is held that :
(i ) The resolutions passed in the extraordinary general meetings held on November 15, 2010 and December 14, 2010, for removal of the petitioners as directors were bad in law and, hence, null and void ;
(ii ) The petitioners are hereby restored as directors of respondent No. 1-company ;
(iii ) The petitioners and the respondents to co-operate with each other and to get the property valued again through the renowned valuer as per the current market conditions and, therefore, the property be sold at a reasonable price and the sale proceeds be distributed in the ratio of the shareholding of the petitioners and the respondents after the payment of liabilities of the respondent-company ;
(iv ) The respondent-company is to make necessary changes/alterations in the statutory records and the returns with the Registrar of Companies within 30 days.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1110 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Admission of additional income - statement offering additional income in the course of search/survey - Held that:- In this case the revenue would like to sustain the addition of ₹ 15,00,000 offered during the course of survey without any iota of supporting evidence for escapement of income. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Kadhar Khan Son [2007 (7) TMI 182 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] has held that Sec. 133A doesn't empower any Income Tax authority to examine any persons on oath. Hence, any sued statement made in the course of survey has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot by itself be made the basis of addition. This view is supported by the instructions given by the CBDT issued on 10.3.2003 which had laid down that confession obtained during the course of search and seizure and survey operation do not serve any useful purpose. The Assessing officer should, therefore, collect evidence which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the Income Tax Department. Similarly, while recording statement during the course of search and seizure operation no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. Any action to the contrary shall be viewed adversely.
Thus we hold that the addition of ₹ 15,00,000 has been made based purely on the confession made by the assessee in the course of survey and hence cannot be sustained without any further supporting evidence. - Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance u/s. 40A(3)- Held that:- We find that the assessee has filed paper book giving the particulars of payment in cash which was disallowed as well as other payments which has been disallowed for non-deduction of tax at source. The assessee contends that the expenditure in cash are such provision of 40A(3) will not apply and the payment of ₹ 2,44,163 does not attract provision of sec. 40(a)(ia). This evidence or argument do not appear to have been considered by the AO or CIT(A). In the interest of justice, we remit the issue of disallowance of ₹ 13,63,209 u/s. 40A(3) and ₹ 2,44,163 u/s. 40(a)(ia) to the file of the AO. The AO shall give reasonable opportunity to the assessee to submit his case and decide the issue in accordance with law.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1109 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee in default - Non deduction of TDS u/s 192 - Payment of Salary - expatriate employees from Japan - Held that:- HC order confirmed [2011 (5) TMI 362 - DELHI HIGH COURT] stating even the issue of limitation had become academic as the assessee could not be declared as assessee in default under Section 192 read with Section 201 of the Act. There was a debate on the question as to whether TDS was deductible under the Income Tax Act, 1961, on foreign salary payment as a component of the total salary paid to an expatriate working in India? - This controversy came to an end vide judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2009 (3) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT ) - Assessee could not be declared as assessee in default under Section 192 read with Section 201 of the Act for the relevant period. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1108 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Insecticides - classification - whether G.K.Aerosol, Hit Aerosol, Hit Rat and Hit Line are Insecticides falling under Entry 23 of Schedule-III of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003? - taxable at 4% or 12.5%? - Held that: - Where a word has a scientific or technical meaning and also an ordinary meaning according to common parlance, it is in the latter sense that in a taxing statute the word must be held to have been used, unless contrary intention is clearly expressed by the legislature.
The products, which are in dispute are not mosquito repellants nor mosquito coils much less phenyl, liquid toilet cleaners or floor cleaners. It is a killer for crawling, flying insects and rats. An “insecticide” is a substance used to kill insects and “rodenticide” to kill rodents. They include ovicides and larvicides used against insect eggs and larvae respectively. They are used in agriculture, medicine, industry and by consumers. The aforesaid product provides an instant kill solution to all insect and rodent problems. Depending on the nature of the problem, a specialist product is available to deal with it. HIT comes in a specialist Flying insect killer format to provide an instant solution to mosquito and fly problem, a specialist crawling insect killer format to ensure a sustained roach free and ant free house and a multi insect killer format, if a single solution is needed. Therefore, HIT Aerosol is meant for flying insects, which kills both flies and mosquitoes. HIT Aerosol for crawling insects eliminates cockroaches for six weeks. It has an applicator which kills hidden cockroaches. HIT Aerosol for crawling and flying insects is a multi insect killer for crawling and flying insects and therefore, all these products fall within the word “insecticide”. It is not a repellant. Incidentally, it also kills mosquitoes. What is excluded from the ambit of “insecticide” is mosquito repellants and not mosquito killers. Hit Rat are for killing rodents and Hit Line are meant for killing crawling insects.
Revision petition dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1107 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Restoration of appeal - appeal dismissed on account of failure to make pre-deposit - Held that: - Applications for restoration of appeals have been filed on 24.05.2013, almost after seven years - the appellant has not tried to comply with the orders which were passed by the Tribunal in 2006 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1106 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Addition on account of disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- Investment made in a firm is to be treated as investment for earning exempt income. In case of mixed funds disallowance has to be made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D.
Further there is no force in the submissions that the Assessing Officer has not given any cogent reason for making disallowance in the sense that he has not pointed out which expenditure is relatable. First of all the assessee has not given any working wherein disallowance was made by the assessee himself while filing return. Secondly when the common expenditure and common interest is incurred then allocation has to be made on proportionate basis in terms of Sec 14A r.w.r. 8D for which discussion has been made in case of Chadha Super Cars (2012 (12) TMI 1036 - ITAT CHANDIGARH ) and relevant paras have already been extracted above. Therefore we find nothing wrong in the order of CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) has merely followed the order of the Tribunal and confirmed the disallowance. - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1105 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Complaint filed under Section 16(3) FEMA - Writ of mandamus to forbear the respondent from proceeding further with the adjudication in pursuance of a show cause notice, without complying with a particular Rule - Held that:- The scheme of Section 4 actually provides opportunities at the every stage to the noticee. The forming of an opinion at the stage of show cause notice and receipt of reply, as provided in sub-rule (3) of Rule 4, is almost akin to the forming of an opinion by a disciplinary authority to hold or not an enquiry, upon receipt of a reply to a charge memo in a disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, do not think that there is any scope for expanding Rule 4(3) to mean that the forming of the opinion as required in Rule 4(3) has to be reflected by an order in writing containing reasons.
Be that as it may, the petitioner had allowed several things to pass, before he came up with the above writ petition. When the petitioner came up with the above writ petition, the stage of Rule 4(3) had already been passed. The enquiry had actually come, at the time when the petitioner moved this Court, to the stage of Rule 4(8). Therefore, it is not possible now to put the clock back or rewind the proceedings back to the stage of Rule 4(3).
After all, the requirement of Rule 4(3) even if the interpretation given by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court [2013 (8) TMI 435 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] is taken to be correct, should be seen only as part of the principles of natural justice. Since the petitioner had crossed the stage of Rule 4(3) and the entire enquiry is now over and orders reserved, the petitioner should be taken to have waived the requirement.
............
|
