|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 2171 Records
-
2018 (5) TMI 2116 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Delayed payment of employee’s contribution to provident fund beyond the due date stipulated under that Act - payment was deposited in the financial year itself and before the filing of return of income u/s 139(1) - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute between the parties regarding the dates of deposit of ESI and PF which clearly are beyond the prescribed date of deposit as applicable under the respective acts. However, there is no dispute between the parties that these deposits were made before the filing of return of income for the relevant assessment year. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd [2016 (12) TMI 1479 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has dealt with similar issue and after taking into account the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT]and after taking into account views of different High Courts, has decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee .
-
2018 (5) TMI 2115 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment u/s 153A/153C - proof of incriminating material - assessment in case of third party - HELD THAT:- Third party assessments are to be completed in certain other proceedings has been the subject matter in several other Division Bench judgments including the judgments in the cases of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Super Malls Pvt. Ltd.’ [2016 (11) TMI 1370 - DELHI HIGH COURT], ‘Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd.’,[2017 (3) TMI 108 - DELHI HIGH COURT] ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. RRJ Securities Ltd.’, [2015 (11) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. and ‘ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax’ [2017 (4) TMI 1194 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
The Court is of the opinion that the challenge to the provisions of Section 153 of the Act has been rendered academic to an extent since these judgments have tempered in the condition of the use of statutory powers as it were. Consequently, the Revenue is directed to proceed afresh and re-determine the assessment u/s 153A/153C of the Act in accordance with law having regard to the above judgments, within six months from today. At the same time, it is clarified that the assessee is precluded from urging the bar of limitation having regard to the fact that the order had ensured and bound the parties till now. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2114 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessment u/s 153A - Deemed divided addition u/s 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity with the decision of the ITAT. In Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the Court had clearly indicated that the AO cannot arbitrarily complete the block assessment under Section 153A “without any relevance or nexus with the seized material”. The Court also held that an assessment in such circumstances has to be made under the provision only on the basis of seized material - it was held that in the absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and abetted assessment or re-assessment can be made. In the present case, the Revenue does not urge that it discovered any new material justifying the addition under Section 2(22)(e). Rather, there was no material to connect the additions made under that head. Clearly, there was no incriminating material or facts or circumstances justifying the addition - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2113 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH
Exemption from GST - outward supplies made to ocean going merchant vessels on foreign run, Indian Naval Ships and Indian Coast Guard Ships - HELD THAT:- The applicant has raised a new issue for clarification, which was not placed before the Advance Ruling Authority, i.e. to decide whether the transactions are export (zero rated) or not. Hence, the Advance Ruling Authority are directed to issue necessary ruling after hearing the applicant afresh, and taking a wholistic view of the applicant's plea. The Advance Ruling Authority must decide the case within 90 days of receipt of this order.
The matter is remanded back to Advance Ruling Authority.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2112 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of the invocation of Section 153A - Whether no incriminating material was found during the search conducted in Assessee's premises? - HELD THAT:- Tag to SLP(C) MGF AUTOMOBILES LTD [2016 (7) TMI 1448 - SC ORDER].
-
2018 (5) TMI 2111 - ITAT CUTTACK
Revision u/s 263 - Period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The order passed by the CIT u/s.263 is dated 30.03.2014 and it was sent to the assessee by Speed Post on 05.04.2014, copy of receipt of the Speed Post is placed on record. AR could not file evidence that the order was passed after the said date and we rely on decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sophia Study Circle [2013 (6) TMI 355 - ITAT CUTTACK] - Decided against assessee.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2110 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Seeking Injunction restraining the respondent authorities - breach on the part of the petitioners of the terms of the loan covenants entered with the State Bank of India - threatening to publish photographs, names and addresses of the petitioners in leading newspapers - HELD THAT:- From the documents annexed to the writ petition there is no doubt that the Company of which the petitioners are directors and guarantors (for the financial assistance availed of by the Company), have acknowledged and admitted their liability in respect of the credit facilities obtained from the respondent bank. The response of the Company to the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI does not dispute this liability. It is also clear from the impugned letter dated 19th November 2014, which is under challenge in this proceeding, that the Company had been advised to repay the loan amount by 10th December 2014 and that admittedly no steps have been taken by the Company thereafter to honour its financial obligations to the respondent bank. The company has instead filed a suit and an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in an attempt to push back their obligations to the bank.
The judgement of this Court provides a window of "Special Circumstances" when the bank can proceed with such coercive measures against borrowers who have committed deliberate default of the RBI Guidelines with mala-fide intention. This window cannot, however, be applied in the present case since, it cannot be from the material on record said that the Company has wilfully defaulted in its financial obligation to the respondents Bank or that the petitioner as Directors and Guarantors of the Company can be held liable for the conduct complained of on the part of the Company. The decisions relied on by the Bank with regard to the limited sphere of interference of a Court in relation to show-cause notices are not applicable since the impugned letter dated 19th November, 2014 cannot be construed as a show-cause notice per-se.
The interim order passed by this Court on 20th January, 2015 is confirmed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2109 - ITAT SURAT
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - unexplained cash deposits - As per CIT AO not made addition of cash deposits in IDBI Bank and in Axis Bank and not made any enquiry regarding acquisition of shares - case was reopened u/s.147 and assessment was made under section 143(3) read with section 147 - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has disclosed bank account with IDBI in her balance sheet filed along with return of income, and same are claimed as cash sales, which have been accepted by the AO after making enquiry, therefore, same cannot be treated as undisclosed. Similarly, with regard to investment in shares, we find that Pr.CIT has not pointed out that which shares are held by the assessee - in consequent to proceeding under section 263, an assessment order was passed wherein the AO has not made any addition on account of investment in shares but made some other deposits which are still not clear. Thus, we find that the AO has made enquiry and taken a plausible view after application of mind.
The order passed by the AO, in our opinion, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, if the Pr.CIT would have specifically pointed out that which of inquiries or verification should have been carried out by the AO in this regard and the AO failed to carry out those inquiries and verification as desired by the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax. Since the Pr.CIT has not suggested the basis of inquiry or verification to be carried out by the AO, the order passed by the AO cannot be deemed to be erroneous in so as far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
AO has considered cash deposits as unexplained and considered the same in the case of Shri Ankit V. Parekh and made addition on this account by estimating profit @ 8%. It may also be noted that assessment was reopened for verification of these very deposits, therefore, it was incumbent on the AO to make such enquiry in respect of these issues. In view of these facts and circumstances, we find that the AO has made due enquiries. Since we find that the AO had made enquiries regarding cash deposits in bank account and taken a view and considered for addition and accepted the version of the assessee that bank account with IDBI was disclosed and not made any addition on this treating it as disclosed and on shares as no investment in shares was found to have been made by the assessee. Thus, the view taken by the AO was plausible view, which cannot be disturbed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2108 - ITAT DLEHI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - assessee has not complied with the notice fixing the date of hearing in assessment proceedings - assessee received notices under section 153A - HELD THAT:- As per the case of a group company in Glenasia Commodities Pvt. Ltd [2017 (10) TMI 1596 - ITAT DELHI] we are of the considered opinion that the plea taken by the assessee that because of the huge work involved in furnishing information in 12 cases for 6 years constitutes a proper and plausible explanation. Further, we find that the ratio laid down in Akhil Bharatiya Prathmik Shikshack Sangh Bhawan trust’s [2007 (8) TMI 386 - ITAT DELHI-G] case squarely applies to the facts of this batch of cases. We, therefore, find that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the act cannot be sustained. We accordingly direct the Ld. AO to delete the same. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2107 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance interest on interest fee advance - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2016 (7) TMI 1631 - ITAT DELHI] issue decided the issue in favour of the assessee.
Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - AO observed that the assessee has received tax free dividend income on long term trade investment and claimed the same as exemption u/s 10 (34) - Suo moto disallowance made by assessee - CIT (A) restricted the disallowance as disallowed by the assessee itself - HELD THAT:- Since, in the instant case also the assessee itself has disallowed an amount of ₹ 2.50 as against actual dividend of ₹ 1,70,096/- therefore, following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the immediately preceding assessment year which are in consonance with the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD., CHEMINVEST & OTHERS [2011 (11) TMI 267 - DELHI HIGH COURT] find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly the same is upheld and the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2106 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Bogus purchases - as per DR two companies are only issuing accommodating entries without there being actual sale and therefore, the AO was justified in disallowing the bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- As assessee has made the payments to the parties through banking channels and therefore, the party was rightly identified. Further, the assessee has made the sales of these items and offered the income therefrom to tax. Once the Department accepts the sale, it cannot disallow the corresponding purchases.
When all the documents were on the file of the AO, he ought to have verified the genuineness of the sale instead of depending solely on the statement of the Rajendra Jain Group. In view of the same, we deem it fit and proper to remit the issue to the file of the AO for verification of the documents filed by the assessee and if it is found that the payment has been made by the assessee through banking channels and the purchases and sales have also been recorded in the books and the net profit has been offered to tax, then there cannot be any disallowance of the purchases. Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2105 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Permission to withdraw the appeal - respondent submits that in view of terms and conditions of the agreement, the Appellants are required to withdraw the appeal - HELD THAT:- All the appeals stands disposed of as withdrawn.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2104 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Assessee in default u/s 201(1) - Assessment in the name of a non-existing company - assessee argued assessment order was passed in the name of a non-existing company i.e Vodafone South Ltd. as merged with Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee “Vodafone South Ltd.,” had merged with “Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd.,” and had intimated to the relevant A.O and CIT(A) about the said merger. We find that the A.O had issued the notice in the correct name, but while passing the assessment order, he has mentioned the earlier name of the assessee.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of Skylight Hospitality LLP [2018 (4) TMI 529 - SC ORDER] has held that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected u/s 292B of the IT Act. In fact, the A.O has passed a corrigendum dated 22.01.2018, correcting the name of the assessee and therefore, there is no infirmity in the assessment order. In view of the same, the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is rejected.
TDS u/s 194C - Liability to deduct tax at source on discount extended to its pre-paid distributors on distribution of pre-paid services - Since the issues are covered in favour of Revenue in the assessee’s own case by the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, we are bound to follow the jurisdictional High Court and therefore the grounds are rejected and the orders of the A.O and CIT(A) on this issue are confirmed. Accordingly, assessee’s appeals are dismissed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2103 - ITAT DELHI
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition u/s 68 - assessee has not satisfactorily explained the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholder and the genuineness of the transactions - HELD THAT:- As the original assessment in the instant case was completed u/s 143(3) on 02.04.2009 and the Assessing Officer had accepted the raising of share capital on the basis of various details furnished by the assessee and since the notice has been issued after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and in the said notice there is no allegation of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for completion of the assessment, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the reopening of the completed assessment u/s 148 and re-assessment u/s 147/143(3) is not as per law and are void ab-initio. The various decisions relied on by ld. DR are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. The grounds raised by the Revenue are therefore dismissed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2102 - ITAT PUNE
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Hawala/Bogus purchases - Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - case of the Pr.CIT in the revision order is that the AO failed to make enquiries before completing the assessment on the claims relating to bogus purchases and the sundry creditor balances - receipt of information from the DG (Investigation), Pune as supplied by the Sales Tax Department - AO in restricting the addition i.e. 20% of the said bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- It is a case of taking plausible view by the AO on the issue under consideration. In the revision order, the Pr.CIT did not agree with the said view and restored the issue to the file of AO for fresh assessment implying in favour of making addition of entire such purchases. In this process, Pr.CIT ignored the fact relating to existence of various views on this issue. We have also noticed on the issue of bogus purchases, there are various views inviting debates on the requirement of making entire additions or GP additions of various rates or various GP rates etc. Therefore, making addition on account of bogus purchases constitutes a debatable one. As such, the AO has taken one prevailing view in this matter. Therefore, thrusting another view by the Pr.CIT in his revision order in our view is outside the scope of provisions of section 263. Therefore, it is not a clear cut case of erroneous assumption of law as made out by the Pr.CIT. Hence, the revision order on this issue is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, relevant grounds raised by the assessee on this aspect are allowed.
Regarding the other issue of sundry creditors issue was not at all taken up in the re-assessment proceedings. The reasons recorded by the AO supports the same. Normally, such issues are taken up in the regular assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. In this case, there is no such order passed by the AO at the relevant point of time. Further, it is not the case of the Revenue that the issue of sundry creditors was not examined by the AO.
Therefore, we find the issues above narrated by the Pr.CIT are general and casual. It is not the case of the Pr.CIT that the above issues were allowed by the AO after due process of verification of scrutiny of the account. As such, AO is not under any mandate to examine sundry creditor account - also not the case of the Pr.CIT that there is something erroneous about the sundry creditor account and therefore, the AO failed to make proper/adequate enquiries on this issue.
Pr.CIT’s finding is too general and the same is unsustainable. He failed to make out a case that allowing claims of the assessee on this issue amounts to erroneous order of the AO in so far as it is prejudicial to the revenue. In the absence of any categorical finding on erroneous assumption of law/fact leading to loss of revenue, the finding of the Pr.CIT is not sustainable. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the directions given by the Pr.CIT are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the re-assessment order of the AO is restored. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2101 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Concessional rate of tax - mining services - generation of the electricity - Section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- Section 8(1) to be read with Section 8(3) to be read with Section 8(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 vis-a-vis Article 246-A and 101st amendment to the Constitution of India, otherwise, at interim stage, all the petitions will be decided finally. As there is a prima-facie case in favour of these petitioners, balance of convenience is also in favour of these petitioners and if the stay, as prayed for, is not granted, it will cause irreparable loss to these petitioners.
The State of Jharkhand is hereby directed to issue necessary ‘C’ Forms, without prejudice to their rights and contentions and such ‘C’ Forms may be utilized by these petitioners with the undertaking as noted hereinabove and all such actions shall be subject to the outcome of these writ petitions.
Application allowed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2100 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Since the amount of debt claimed is ₹ 2,54,84,828/- which is above 1 lakh and the default occurred on 24.07.2017, the debt is not time barred and the application is filed within the period of limitation - As the registered office of the Corporate Debtor is in Delhi, so the matter falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
The parameters to initiate CIRP as required under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are duly complied with and the application is complete - Corporate Debtor despite repeated service has not appeared before this Tribunal and existence of a default of debt due to the Applicant is established. The Tribunal is of the considered view that this application requires to be admitted and that CIRP process is required to be initiated against the Corporate Debtor.
Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2099 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The form and manner of the application has to be the one as prescribed. It is evident from the record that the application has been filed on the proforma prescribed under Rule 4 (2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 read with Section 7 of IBC.
It is satisfied that a default has occurred and the application under sub section 2 of Section 7 is complete. The name of the IRP has been proposed and there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed Interim Resolution Professional.
Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2098 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH
Maintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - Operational Creditors - Case is being transferred from High Court - Section 8 Notice was issued after the service of Main Petition - HELD THAT:- Admittedly this case had been transferred from the Hon’ble High Court and in such transferred cases the requirement is to submit all information forming part of the records transferred from the Hon’ble High Court and the Petition is to be Admitted U/s. 7, 8 or 9 of the Code. The other admitted position is that while the old Petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court a Notice was issued on 03.03.2015 under the provisions of Section 433(e) of the Companies Act. That Notice was a legal Notice stating all the facts of the Debt in question along with requisite evidences such as Invoices etc. to establish the genuineness of the Debt.
Notification No. GSR 1119(E) dated 07.12.2016 notified for Transfer of Proceedings Rules, 2016 is worth mentioning. Considering the Notification issued and on comparing with the provisions of the Code it is logical to hold that there is no legal requirement to issue Notices of Demand repeatedly. The duplicity of issuance of Notice of Demand is not a requirement of Law.
he Debt and the occurrence of default is established. Accordingly, this Petition under consideration deserves to be “Admitted” - petition admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2097 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of writ appeal - Seeking police to register a crime and investigate it - Criminal breach of trust - misappropriation breaking out in the open - misdeeds amounting to cognizable offences - police refused to register an FIR - criminal jurisdiction - principle of issue estoppel, first and foremost, affect the writ petition or not? - Permission to do away with the statutory remedies and, instead, take a straight recourse to judicial review? - Ratio v. Obiter v. Holding - Lalita Kumari - Are there any issues sub silentio? - Can a complainant disregard the alternative remedies provided under, say, the Criminal Procedure Code and, instead, insist on a writ remedy? - Refusal to Register a Crime-the Alternative Remedies.
Is the writ appeal maintainable? - HELD THAT:- Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act mandates that an appeal shall lie to a bench of two judges from "(i) a judgment or order of a Single Judge in exercise of original jurisdiction), and (ii) a judgment of a Single Judge in exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in exercise of original jurisdiction by a subordinate court." - there is no exclusion of the orders passed by a learned Single Judge in exercise of a criminal jurisdiction." - Given the emphatic enunciation of law by a co-equal Bench of this Court, it is held that the intra-court appeal is eminently maintainable.
Does the principle of issue estoppel, first and foremost, affect the writ petition? - HELD THAT:- The issue of estoppel stands merged, as observed by the Supreme Court, State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav [2017 (5) TMI 490 - SUPREME COURT] in the principles of Autrefois acquit and Autrefois convict, both of which find enshrined in article 20(2) and section 300 Cr.P.C. Indeed, issue estoppel, a common law doctrine, has been well-entrenched and oft-applied to criminal proceedings. The courts in India, too, have applied this principle at all levels, Apex to trial courts - given the finding on maintainability in the next few paragraphs, this issue becomes academic. And academic issues need no adjudication. So we reckon that our finding on the threshold issue, alternative remedy, obviates an answer to this issue.
Does the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari [2013 (11) TMI 1520 - SUPREME COURT] permit a complainant to do away with the statutory remedies and, instead, take a straight recourse to judicial review? - Pithily put, what is the holding of Lalitha Kumari? - HELD THAT:- The issue before the Supreme Court was this: is a police officer bound to register an FIR under section 154 of Cr.P.C., upon receiving any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence or has he got the power to conduct a preliminary inquiry to test the veracity of such information before registering the crime? - Lalita Kumari's holding is simple and straight: If an aggrieved person approached the police complaining of a cognizable offence, they must register an FIR and promptly enquire into the crime, the arrest of the accused not being an essential step in that process.
Ratio v. Obiter v. Holding - HELD THAT:- Holding emerges when the ratio, the pure principle of law, is applied to the facts of a particular case. That is, a holding is what the court actually decides after combining the facts of a case with the legal principles it deduces in the context of that case - Ratio requires adherence to the extent possible, but the holding compels compliance fully. Stare decisis admits of no exception to a case-holding in the adjudicatory hierarchy.
Lalita Kumari - Are there any issues sub silentio? - HELD THAT:- Once an issue, though present by implication, has not been expressly dealt with and pronounced upon, the judgment on that issue remains sub silentio. Any issue, thus, rendered sub silentio cannot be treated as a precedent - Lalita Kumari, however, had no occasion to consider the issue we have now been confronted with: The alternative statutory remedies available to a complainant after the police's refusing to register an FIR. So we may safely conclude that Lalita Kumari does not obliterate, as it were, the alternative statutory remedies available to the aggrieved complainant.
Can a complainant disregard the alternative remedies provided under, say, the Criminal Procedure Code and, instead, insist on a writ remedy? - HELD THAT:- Despite the repeated attempts of some members failing to bring the police to the Church's door, Shine maintains that one complaint pending before the Magistrate does not affect his right to maintain another one on his own. In Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar [1961 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT], a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held that that there is nothing in the law prohibiting a second complaint on the same allegations when a previous complaint had been dismissed under s. 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Indeed, Pramatha Nath deals with the second complaint by the same person upon having the first one dismissed. It does not apply here.
How Has the Impugned Judgment Proceeded? - HELD THAT:- We have already discussed Lalita Kumari and extracted its holding. We have also held that Lalita Kumari has not dealt with the remedies available to an aggrieved person on whose complaint about a cognizable offence the police have not acted. In fact, Lalita Kumari has only dealt with the issue whether the police could exercise their discretion and indulge in any preliminary enquiry before they register a crime. Therefore, the precedents speaking on a complainant's alternative remedies have not been set at naught. They still hold the field. That said, we must now examine the precedential position on that issue.
Refusal to Register a Crime-the Alternative Remedies - HELD THAT:- Clear and compelling are the judicial directions vis-à-vis an aggrieved person's approaching the High Court. But, disregarding the efficacious alternative-remedies under the Code, the complainants insisted that in Lalitha Kumari, a Constitution Bench has cleared the complainant's path of all statutory hurdles to approach the High Court, straight away.
Shine Varghese has faltered at the first hurdle-the alternative remedy, which he has on more than one count. That is, the impugned judgment suffers from legal infirmity and deserves to be set aside - writ appeal allowed.
........
|
