Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore

Daniel J A vs T.V.Somanathan, Finance Secretary, ... on 24 April, 2023

                            1
                                 CP.No.170/00008/2023/CAT/BANGALORE




         CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
            BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU

        CONTEMPT PETITION NO.170/00008/2023
                       IN
       ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00231/2020


        DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023


CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)

Daniel J.A.,
S/o Late A. Jeyaraj, aged about 47 years,
CLTS O/o the Commissioner of Income Tax,
(International Taxation), 7th floor, BMTC Building,
Koramangala, Bengaluru-560095.                        ....Petitioner

(By Shri T C Gupta, Advocate)

Vs.

1. T.V. Somanathan, Finance Secretary,
Ministry of finance, Department of Revenue,
Government of India, New Delhi-110001.

2. Chaitali Panmei,
Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Karnataka & Goa,
Bangalore- 560001.                          ....Respondents


(By Shri S Prakash Shetty, Senior Panel Counsel)
                                2
                                    CP.No.170/00008/2023/CAT/BANGALORE




                         O R D E R (ORAL)

          PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

This Contempt Petition is filed by the petitioner alleging breach and wilful disobedience of the order dated 19.08.2022 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.231/2020.

2. On issuance of notice to the respondents, memo has been filed by the learned counsel for the respondents along with the copy of the compliance order dated 11.04.2023. The same is taken on record.

3. Learned counsel Shri. T.C Gupta representing the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order is not in compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal as the same is not a reasoned and speaking order.

4. In the circumstances, having regard to the scope of contempt jurisdiction, we find it appropriate to close the contempt proceedings reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the compliance order, if not satisfied or if so advised. 3

CP.No.170/00008/2023/CAT/BANGALORE

5. Contempt proceedings are dropped. Contempt Petition stands closed reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the compliance order as aforesaid.





(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA)                   (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
    MEMBER (A)                              MEMBER (J)

/rk/