SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 1788

TARUN CHATTERJEE, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
G.E. Vahanwati, S.G., Mohan Parasaran, A.S.G., K.K. Venugopal, Janak Dwarka Das, Jaideep Gupta, Daryus Khambatta, C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Advs., Beni Chatterjee, Raghavendra Rao, Benu Chatterjee, arijit Prasad, D.D. Kamath, Rahul Kaushik, T.A. Khan, D.L. Chidanand, B.V. Balaram Das, Ms. Vijaya Lakshmi Menon, Ms. Shashi Kapila, Ms. Priya Bansal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Tushad Cooper, Ms. Rohini Musa, Rohma Hameed, Mahesh Agarwal, E.C. Agrawala, Rihi Agrawala, Abhishek Gupta, Zafar Inayat, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Ms. Shomila Bakshi, Abhimanue Shreshta, Subramonium Prasad, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohtagi, Sumit Goel and Nitin Thukral (for M/s. Parekh & Co.), Advocates.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. —

1. The present appeals were filed against the judgment and order of the Special Court constituted under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) for conducting trial of offences related to transactions in securities. By the impugned judgment and order the Special Court allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1, the State Bank of India and directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 546.22 crores with the Custodian alongwith interest at 9% per annum. The Special Court while issuing the said direction held that the income tax liability for the statutory period of the notified party, namely, Mr. Harshad S. Mehta under Section 11 (2)(a) did not at that stage appear to be in excess of Rs. 140 crores approximately, subject to further orders that the Court might pass at a later stage. In the impugned judgment and order a further direction was issued that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the amount lying deposited with the Custodian and, therefore, a direction was also issued to the Custodian to pay to the banks, namely, the State Bank of Indi












































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top