9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the meanwhile. On 25.7.2006, this Court directed the learned counsel for the parties to find out whether the dispute raised in the case is referable to the Committee on Disputes (COD). In the meanwhile, the respondents filed an application being CM 9291 of 2006 on 27.7.2006 seeking extension of time for completion of assessment since the limitation would be expiring by 28.7.2006. On 31.7.2006 this Court directed notice to issue in the said application. 3. On 13.9.2006 the learned counsel for the DDA-petitioner sought further time to find out whether the COD clearance was required in the present case. This Court clarified that "time spent in this litigation will not be counted towards the period of completion of assessment." 4. Mr. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... litigation in the Court or Tribunal as the case may be. (iv) Where there is the possibility of the appeal or petition becoming time barred, it will be open to the party concerned to file such appeal or petition within the time prescribed even before obtaining clearance. (v) However, the party shall within a month of such filing, approach the High Powered Committee for clearance, with prior notice to the designated authority in the Cabinet Secretariat of the Government of India authorized to receive notices in that behalf.? 6. Thereafter in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited v. Chairman, CBDT (2004) 6 SCC 431, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reiterated the mandatory nature of the clearance that has to be given by the COD for filing of a petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one."(emphasis supplied) 7. We find that the decision in Canara Bank (supra), which was prior to MTNL (supra) turned on its own facts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the disputes there "does not appear to be a genuine dispute between the Government of India undertakings." It has further held that "the real litigation in that case was between the Mutual Fund and NTPC and not between the two undertakings." It was in those circumstances that it was held that the ONGC (supra) judgment would not apply. 8. However, in the present case, the DDA is a statutory authority, the Chairman of which is the Lieutant Governor of Delhi and the controlling Ministry of which the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. It is also n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
