9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is an application for reviewing the judgment and order dated 19th October, 2012 passed in F.M.A. No. 1006 of 2010. This case has a chequered history of litigation and chain of events. This matter arose from writ petition being C.O. no. 18500 (W) of 1985. The order dated 8th September, 1965 passed by Ajit Nath Ray J., (as the Chief Justice of India then was) was questioned. The said order set aside the sale of premises no. 43, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'the disputed property') by the Union of India to one V.N. Vasudeva on August 18, 1964. The disputed property was under the attachment of the Income Tax Department, which was sold for recovery of the outstanding dues of the Hindu Undivided Family of one Kirodimu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sputed property for sale and, also, for leave to complete the sale of the disputed property in favour of V.N.Vasudeva. On 1st April, 1965, a sale certificate under Section 95 of the Punjab Law Revenue Act, 1887, was issued by the District Collection Officer certifying the same in favour of V.N.Vasudeva. The sale was under the Punjab Law Revenue Act, 1887, to realise the arrears under the Income Tax Act. On 8th September, 1965, Ajit Nath Ray, J., (as the Chief Justice of India then was) while dealing with the said application of the Union of India, through the Income Tax Officer, Raigarh Circle, inter alia, directed as under: "It is ordered that the said applicant union be at liberty to put up the Delhi property being the joint moveab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e done in the past. An appeal was filed before the Appeal Court, which was tendered under MAT no. 87 of 1999. The said Vasudeva had expressly admitted in the said appeal, particularly, in the application for stay, that by an order dated 8th September, 1965, this Court gave liberty to the Union of India to put the disputed premises for sale. The said appeal was disposed of by judgment and order dated 17th August, 2001, holding, inter alia, that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has power to review its order and an application for review the mistakes apparent on record could be corrected. It was, further, observed that after making necessary corrections in the order even the decision could be changed, if so war ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 31st March, 2006 holding, inter alia, that the division bench in the order dated 17th August, 2001, set aside the order dated 7th August, 1998 of Ajoy Nath Ray, J., (as the Chief Justice then was) and the direction for re-hearing of the writ petition was, also, set aside. An appeal was filed before the division bench, which was registered as F.M.A. no. 1006 of 2010. The basic question before the Appeal Court in F.MA. no. 1006 of 2010 was whether the division bench by the order dated 17th August, 2001 in M.A.T. no. 87 of 1999 set aside the order passed by Ajoy Nath Ray, J., (as the Chief Justice then was). A division bench of this Court in which one of us (Asim Kumar Mondal, J.) was a party by judgment and order dated 19th October ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irecting rehearing of the writ petition on all the points was sustained. Moreover, V.N.Vasudeva was an advocate and was practised in Income Tax. He was retained by Kirodimull Lohariwala. He was inducted as a tenant in respect of the disputed premises at a paltry sum of Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred) only. It appears to us that Ajit Nath Ray, J., (as the Chief Justice of India then was) was persuaded by the fact that a lawyer could not purchase his clients' property and, therefore, His Lordship refused to condone the omission on the part of the income tax department for taking leave from this Court before putting the Delhi property for sale and refused to grant leave to income tax department to complete the purported sale in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 20th November, 1998. Moreover, the private respondents in the application for special leave against order dated 17th August, 2001, inter alia, proceeded on the basis that the appeal against the said order was dismissed. Therefore, the Vasudevas are not entitled from reagitating the dispute, which has been subject of a judicial decision earlier. The Vasudevas cannot turn around and take a contrary stand when the other party had accepted their reading and acted upon to their detriment. The order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 31st March, 2006, did not analyse the judgment of the division bench dated 17th August, 2001 in the proper perspective. The Hon'ble Single Judge did not take into consideration the contents of the Special Leave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
