TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on whether substantial questions of law in fact exist at all or not. This being the case, in a lengthy order the very Division Bench has thought it fit to recall its own earlier judgment. In the above circumstances, we do not feel inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment in view of what has been recorded in the impugned judgment dated 08.04.2013 [2013 (12) TMI 369 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] Whether transport subsidies were or were not available together with other incentives - Held that:- Insofar as the second question is concerned, we accept the submission of assesssee that High Courts being Courts of Record under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India, the power of review would in fact inhere in them. This was in fact so decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seeb,Adv., Mr. Jitin Singhal,Adv., Mrs. Rashmi Malhotra,Adv., Mrs. Gargi Khanna,Adv., Ms. Sadhana Sandhu,Adv., Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Gopal Subramanian,Sr.Adv., Ms. Kavita Jha,Adv., Ms. Mehak Gupta,Adv., Mr. Ramesh Goenka,Adv., Mr. Sunil Murarka,Adv., Mr. Kunal Chatterji,Adv., Mr. Tavish Bhusan Prasad,Adv., Mr. Saransh Kumar,Adv., Ms. Sadhna Saxena,Adv. ORDER The Civil Appeal No. 10495/2013 and Civil Appeal 1619 of 2012 arise out of two judgments delivered by the High Court of judicature at Guwahati. By the first judgment dated 16.09.2010 various points on merits were gone into, inter alia, as to whether deductions to be made under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were allowable on facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmulate the substantial questions of law and, then, invite the parties to have their say in the matter amount to denial of opportunity of effective hearing to the parties concerned, particularly, to the review petitioners, we must have the magnanimity and courage to acknowledge our mistake, recall the judgment and order dated 16.09.2010, and, then, decide the appeal, on merit, after having formulated the substantial questions of law, which this Court may deem necessary for adjudication of the appeal. 127. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, these review petitions succeed. The impugned judgment and order stand accordingly reviewed and recalled. Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies. We find that as a matter of fact what Mr. Subramaniam has argued before us is reiterated by the very Division Bench which heard and reserved judgment on 16.09.2010. By the review order dated 08.04.2013, the Division Bench felt that it should not have gone into the matter at all given the fact that on an earlier occasion, before 16.09.2010, it had reserved judgment on whether substantial questions of law in fact exist at all or not. This being the case, in a lengthy order the very Division Bench has thought it fit to recall its own earlier judgment. In the above circumstances, we do not feel inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment in view of what has been recorded in the impugned judgment dated 08.04.2013. Insofar as the sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... previous proceedings. As we have already pointed out, it is precisely because they were not made parties to the previous proceedings, though their interests were sought to be affected by the decision of the High Court, that the second application was entertained by Khosla,J. We are in respectful agreement with what is stated in the aforesaid judgment. Apart from what has been said by us, it is also clear that on a cursory reading of Section 260A (7), the said Section does not purport in any manner to curtail or restrict the application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 260A(7) only states that all the provisions that would apply qua appeals in the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to appeals under Section 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
