Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Mass Traders in Shyam Investments And Another vs Appropriate Authority And Others on 13 March, 1994Matching Fragments
7. On the contrary, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the intending purchaser had immediately challenged the order directing pre-emptive purchase within a week from the date of the order and the rest of the events, viz., delivery of possession by the vendors to the appropriate authority and payment of the balance of consideration amount by the appropriate authority to the vendors, have all taken place, pursuant to the direction issued by this court, that in the absence of such a direction in the light of the interim order of stay passed at the instance of the writ petitioner, it was not at all possible to obtain possession from the vendors and to pay the balance of consideration amount of Rs. 16 lakhs to them by the appropriate authority. The events that have taken place pursuant to the orders of court should not be construed so as to affect the interest of the writ petitioner. In support of this plea, learned counsel has also placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Appropriate Authority v. Mass Traders P. Ltd. [1993] 202 ITR 741. The learned junior standing counsel for Income-tax Department placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this court in Writ Petition No. 10963 of 1987 - K. K. Anandam Ammal v. Union of India [1995] 212 ITR 9, dated April 7, 1994.
9. In the case of Mass Traders [1993] 202 ITR 741, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has taken a view that the clarification does not cover the case pending on the date the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gautam's case [1993] 199 ITR 530, was delivered. In the facts and circumstances of this case as stated above, we are of the view that we need not go to that extent in this case and hold that the clarification will not apply to cases, which were pending on the date Gautam's case was decided. In addition to this, it may also be pointed out that though the Supreme Court has dismissed the S. L. P. filed against the judgment in Mass Traders' case, [1993] 202 ITR 741, it has nevertheless left open all other points decided therein.