Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. According to Mr. Sarkar, if the Legislature had intended otherwise it would not have provided the safeguard against prosecution in Section 279 of the above Act.

7. In support of his aforesaid contention, Mr. Sarkar firstly referred to and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. , wherein while considering the decision of the Bombay High Court in connection with an application for amalgamation, the Supreme Court, inter alia, observed that whenever a decision making function was entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there was an implicit obligation to apply his mind to proximate matters only and to eschew the irrelevant and the remote. If the decision of the authority was perverse or was such that no reasonable person could have arrived at such decision, the High Court would be justified in interfering with the decision.