Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S ANJU BRICK FIELD, NANU MANDELA, GHAZIABAD versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Anju Brick Field, Nanu Mandela, Ghaziabad v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT TAX No. 640 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 6942 (30 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO25

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 640 OF 2006

M/s Anju Brick Field, Nanu Mandela, Ghaziabad.          ....Applicant

Versus

State of U.P. & others.   .Opp.party

***************

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present writ petition is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 07.02.2006 by which Tribunal has rejected the recalling application.  Tribunal has decided appeal no. 803 of 2003 relating to the assessment year 2000-01 ex-party vide order dated 16.04.2005 on the ground that on the date fixed i.e. 12.04.2005, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. In the recalling application, it was stated that on the earlier occasion counsel for the petitioner appeared and noted the date. On the date fixed, he was fallen ill, therefore, he could not appear. In support of his contention medical certificate was filed. It has also been stated due to the illness information could not be given to the partners of the firm. Tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that it could not be believed that the information of the date fixed could not be given by the counsel for the petitioner to the partners of the firm.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

With the consent of both the parties, present writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

In my opinion, order of the Tribunal is erroneous. There is no dispute that on earlier occasions, counsel for the petitioner appeared and noted the date.  Counsel has filed the affidavit stating therein that he could not appear on the date fixed, due to his illness and in support of his illness, medical certificate was furnished. Tribunal has taken a pedantic view for rejecting the recalling application. In the circumstances, order of the Tribunal is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal no.803 of 2003 afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.  Petitioner may appear before the Tribunal on 02.05.2006. On that date either Tribunal may hear the appeal or fix any other date.

With the aforesaid observation, writ petition is disposed of.

Dt.30.03.2006

R./


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.