Case study suggesting need of streamlining court procedures for expediting justice and to reduce number of cases.

[DEVKUMAR KOTHARI]

Case study suggesting need of streamlining court procedures for expediting justice and to reduce number of cases.

General:

We find that in the Supreme Court and High Courts some practices and procedures need streamlining to improve productivity and reduce number of pending cases. For example:

Numbering of cases:

Multiple number of cases can be reduced by tagging related cases. For example at present we find different petitions like the main appeal / petition, stay petition, condonation of delay petition , interlocutory petitions etc. If all these can be tagged in one or incorporated in one, number of cases will be reduced.

Recently author noticed  in a case before High Court, there are three applications  namely appeal (ITAT), General application 1 for stay of operation of order of Tribunal, General application 2 for condonation of delay. When any order is passed, even for adjournment, the same order was shown as three orders against each number of ITA, GA 1 and GA 2 although the order is simply for refining the date.

For example, in online filing of appeal before CIT(A) in form no. 35 itself information is asked about delay, reasons and petition for condonation etc. In attachment to form 35 we can also add stay petition and petition for condonation of delay. All these will fall under one appeal number. The same practice can be adopted in cases before Tribunal and Courts.

Case studied -COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD. [2023 (12) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT]

Dates gathered from the order of the Supreme Court   2023 (12) TMI 37 - and on visit of website  https://main.sci.gov.in/case-status on 22.02.24

High Court order dated 31.08.2012  admitting the Tax Appeal No. 1096/2011[COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I VERSUS DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD. - 2012 (8) TMI 1228 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]

Tribunal order date and order could not be found. This is likely to be within 2010 and 2011.

Present SC order dt. 08.11.2023  on CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) NO. 5453/2013 in which case was disposed of.

Listing Dates

Starting from 03.07.2018 there are 13 dates of listing out of which only one  ( first one) was before the Registrar all other are before judge. These includes fixing next date, not taken up today/ not today. Last is 08.11.2023 on that day case was disposed of.

Diary No.- 12663 - 2013

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMI.LTD.

Case No.  C.A. No. 005453 / 2013  Registered on 09-07-2013
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 011876 / 2013  Registered on 09-07-2013
SLP(C) No. 022106 / 2013  Registered on 09-07-2013

We find that three cases have been counted in this matter.

Admitted  ADMITTED ON : 01-01-1990] There seems some mistake in this  date found on webpage.

Earlier case SLP  on similar matter:

On reading of the judgment we find reference of earlier similar matters informed by counsels to the Supreme Court, in which SLP was admitted

  ….  SLP was granted in similar matter against the judgment & order dated 30.03.2010 passed by same High Court in ITA No. 3830 of 2003 which is now converted in Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 2012 and is allotted

Other details we find from website are:

Diary No.- 41638 - 2010

C.I.T vs. M/S DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. Status is pending.

Status/Stage   Pending - (Final Hearing) List before court/bench (Detagged. List separately as per rop dated 08-11-2023.)-Ord dt:08-11-2023.

It seems that this case was earlier tagged and was retagged on  08.11.2023 when order was passed in another case.

Matter decided on 08.11.2023:

We find that High Court admitted the ITA but formulated only four questions and left two questions. This was challenged before the Supreme Court.

There is no information found as to why High Court did not formulate two questions, whether, High Court found it as matter of fact or the question being not SQL I not clear.

From reported judgment:

Counsels appeared :

For Appellant(s)

1. Mr. Balbir Singh, A.S.G.
2. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR
3. Mr. Prahlad Singh, Adv.
4. Mr. Rupesh Kumar,
5. Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh Ii, Adv.
6. Mr. Antariksh Singh, Adv.
7. Mr. Samarvir Singh, Adv.
8. Mr. Hemant Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

1.Mr. Saurabh N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv.

2.Mr. D.N. Ray, Adv.

3.0Mr. Bandish S. Soparkar, Adv.

4.Mr. Dillip Kumar Nayak, Adv.

5.Ms. Disha Ray, Adv.

6.Mrs. Sumita Ray, AOR

Observations of author:

Considering the matter, it seems that there is brain drain of highly skilled and highly paid counsels. And by applying delaying tactics, valuable time of Courts is also wasted.

In this matter, when SLP was admitted on similar issue in case of the same parties, matter could have been expedited by informing the Court ( by court officers about  earlier order) and there was no need for representation by so many counsels on part of both parties.

If proper record and information was provided to honourable judges, about all related matters, time could have been saved.

Matter restored to the High Court:

The honourable Supreme Court restored the matter to the High Court about two questions which were not formulated. Analysis of order- from order with highlights added:

ORDER

The grievance of the appellant(s) is that the High Court by the impugned order dated 31.08.2012 while admitting the Tax Appeal No. 1096/2011 formulated only four substantial questions of law whereas two other substantial questions of law which were sought to be raised by the appellant(s) herein were not formulated by the High Court. Hence, this appeal.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we dispose of this appeal by reserving liberty to the appellant(s) herein to raise the following two questions of law before the High Court:

“[I] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the interest disallowance of Rs. 47,40,000/- on account of interest bearing funds diverted to associate companies?

[II] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,41,43,486/-made on account of difference between stock as per the books of account and as per the stock statements submitted to the Banks?

It is submitted that on the above mentioned two identical issues this Hon’ble Court has already admitted the SLP against the judgment & order dated 30.03.2010 passed by same High Court in ITA No. 3830 of 2003, which is now converted in Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 2012. It is submitted that total tax effect pertaining to disputed issue is to a tune of Rs. 3,63,39,680/- in respect of assessment year 2003- 2004 with recurring effect.”

The High Court to consider the submissions to be made by the respective parties and to raise the above substantial questions of law if they so arise.

It is needless to observe that on hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, the High Court is also empowered to raise any other substantial question of law which may arise in the matter(s).

The aforesaid questions are stated to be substantial questions of law by learned counsel for the appellant(s).

It is needless to observe that the respondent(s) is at liberty to contend that the aforesaid questions are not substantial questions of law and therefore do not require to be entertained in this appeal.

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stand disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Observations of author:

By restoring the matter to the High Court, the same issue will again linger. When SLP has been admitted on similar issue in another year, and that too between the same parties, matter could have been tagged with another case wherein SLP was admitted for final hearing on the SQL.

On the website in relation to CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2226/2012

We find that the order dt. 08.11.2023  in CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) NO. 5453/2013 is placed and below that we find

C.A. NO. 2226/2012:

Detagged.

List separately.

And for C.A. No. 5453/2013:

The Civil Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order which is placed on the file.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(RADHA SHARMA)                                       (MALEKAR NAGARAJ)

COURT MASTER (SH)                                   COURT MASTER (NSH)

Observation of author:

In relation to C.A. NO. 2226/2012 all counsels attended, then why the matter has been retagged and listed separately.

In any of the orders there is no order found for admitting the SLP. This is causing a sort of confusion and doubt as to whether the counsels statement that SLP was admitted is correct or not or whether such order is not placed on the website?

This matter was tagged earlier, then why it was retagged and listed separately is not understandable.

Visit of website  https://main.sci.gov.in/case-status   on 23.02.2024:

In the case no. 5453 of 2012  results found are as follows:

Tagged Matters

CONNECTED MATTERS NOT FOUND

Judgement/Orders

No Record Found

In listing details, all details  of case fixed are found.

NOTICES section

In the notice section on the website  we find a table which shows:

Process Id 236833/2023-11-24

Notice Type:   Civil Appeal Dismissal Letter

Name: RAJ BAHADUR YADAV-2771 copy   NEW DELHI / DELHI

SUMITA RAY-1240  Copy  NEW DELHI /  DELHI

THE REGISTRAR,SUMITA RAY-1240  GUJARAT / AHMEDABAD

The date of issue 24.11.23 and date of dispatch 28.11.23

This means that case no. 5453 of 2012 is tagged with C.A. NO. 2226/2012 and in that link order is now placed.

Similar notice is not found in link for case no. 2226/2012 and the status is shown PENDING

Thus there is confusion and lack of clarity.

This shows, that procedures and steps and system of treating separate or different matters , passing of orders thereon and final presentation need to be streamlined.