Gujarat High Court
Praful vs Chairman on 16 July, 2008
Author: Anant.S.Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1034/1997 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1034 of 1997
=========================================================
PRAFUL
KAHNDUBHAI DESAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHAIRMAN
AND MANAGING DIRECTOR & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
PARTY-IN-PERSON
for Petitioner(s) : 1,
SERVED BY
RPAD - (N) for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s)
: 2,4 - 5.
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 3,
MR
DARSHAN M PARIKH for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 16/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. While admitting this petition on 10th March 1997 this Court (Coram : Miss Justice R. M Doshit), the following order was passed:
?S Leave to add Bank of Baroda Employees' Provident Fund Trust. Rule. By way of interim relief, it is directed that the Bank shall accept lump sum amount of voluntary contribution made by the petitioner on 6th January 1997 and shall credit the same to the petitioner's provident fund account??.
2. Pursuant to the said order the bank has accepted the payment made by the petitioner and the effect is also given.
3. The prayer in this petition of the petitioner who appears in party in person is as under :
?SYour Lordship, may kindly admit this petition and issue appropriate writ, directions, orders on the respondent Bank that the VPF contribution of Rs 41,388/- of the petitioner already made by him be taken into account for the purpose of 'deductions' allowed under section 88 of the Income Tax Act and issue certificate under section 203 of the Income Tax Act 1969 for tax deducted at source.??
4. Considering the prayer of the petitioner in the context of the subject matter and the interim protection as given by learned judge in the order dated 10th March 1997, now nothing on merit can be decided and without going into the merits of the case and making it specifically clear that this order will not be treated as Precedent in future. Rule is made absolute in terms of interim relief and acceptance of amount by the bank cannot be treated as violation of any provision of the Income Tax Act, since it was pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court.
The contention of the party-in-person that the above direction in the order passed in this case shall not be considered as precedent, as it may affect other colleagues of the petitioner cannot be accepted since the grievance is of the petitioner, who appears as party-in-person is already redressed.
(Anant.S.Dave,J) mary// Top