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 1, Cited by 2]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Chief,C.I.T,Bhubaneshwar vs Kamal Jeet Singh Ahluwalia on 8 May, 2014

ê                                       1

ITEM NO.38                       COURT NO.2             SECTION IIIA


                S U P R E M E       C O U R T   O F    I N D I A
                                 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).29416/2012

(From the judgement and order dated 10/03/2010 as corrected on
dated 18/03/2010 in WP No.149/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT
CUTTACK)

CHIEF,C.I.T,BHUBANESHWAR & ORS.                               Petitioner(s)

                     VERSUS

KAMAL JEET SINGH AHLUWALIA                        Respondent(s)
(I.A. No. 2-Appln. for placing on record addl. documents)
(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and prayer for interim
relief and office report)

Date: 08/05/2014      This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
           HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU
           HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

For Petitioner(s)        Mr. Gaurav Banerji, ASG
                         Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv.
                         Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.
                         Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv.

For Respondent(s)        Mr.     Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv.
rr.1                     Mr.     Gaurav Khanna, Adv.
                         Mr.     Akshat Anand, Adv.
                         Ms.     Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv.

                         Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai,Adv
                         Mr. Vipul Jai, Adv.

                         Mr.P.S.Sudheer ,Adv
                         Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv.
                         Mr. Raj Kumar Kaushik, Adv.
                                 2


    UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                        O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1(applicant in I.A. No. 2) states that the matter was referred to the Income Tax Settlement Commission (IT & WT) for certain reliefs as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. He further submits that the Settlement Commission had passed appropriate orders and therefore the petition has become infructuous.

In view of the statement so made by learned counsel for respondent No. 1, in our opinion, nothing survives in this special leave petition for our consideration and decision. Therefore, the special leave petition is disposed of as having infructuous.

However, we reserve liberty to the petitioner(s) to approach this Court once over again, if, for any reason the submission of respondent No. 1 (applicant in I.A. No. 2) is incorrect.

   [ Charanjeet Kaur ]                        [ Vinod Kulvi ]
       Court Master                           Asstt. Registrar