High Court in its own Motion vs M. N. Navale, The President, Sinhgad Technical Education Society

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(Bom) 1330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. SANKLECHA, SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
High Court in its own Motion - Petitioner
Vs.
M.N. Navale, The President, Sinhgad Technical Education Society – Respondent
CRIMINAL SUO MOTO CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 13099 OF 2017
Decided on : 28-08-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. J.P. Yagnik, Adv
For the Respondent: Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Mr. V.P. Sawant, Mr. Vijay Patil I/b Mr. Nitin Dhumal, Mr. Sham Walve, Adv.

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 254 - Issuance of notice for considering action - Delay in payment of salaries - Impugned order further records that in absence of complying with condition of deposit stay would stand vacated and appeals would be heard in normal course and not on an expeditious basis on as stay granted matter - This Petition was first mentioned on an ad interim relief from depositing the sum in three installment as ordered by the Tribunal and stay of recovery proceedings - However at that time the Petitioner informed the Court that they are in no position to deposit any amount - Thus this court by order November refused to grant any ad interim relief and the Petition was directed to be placed on board for admission in its own turn – Held, This stand on his part is incorrect as Note Sheet prepared by him clearly records his understanding of the letter December respondent that Revenue will not appropriate the amounts to be received in the attached bank accounts from Social Welfare Department State of Maharashtra – Thus affidavit does not correctly reflects fact - Besides affidavit states that he understood the oral communication of the Advocate for the Revenue that should not appropriate amounts received in attached bank accounts in PNB from Social Welfare Department State of Maharashtra to mean that the petitioner should be allowed to withdraw amounts - No further enquiry was made by respondent from Advocate for Revenue even when communication of respondent did not indicate any directions of the Court permitting the petitioner to withdraw any amounts from the attached bank accounts in PNB - All this is further aggravated by fact that even on as recorded in our order respondent did not bring above facts to the notice of the Court and it was only because Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner pointing aforesaid facts did court come to know of fact that direction are being attributed to this Court to enable party to enjoy benefit which was not allowed by Court - This apology by respondent is not bona fide and therefore not accepted - Petition is disposed

JUDGMENT :

M.S.SANKLECHA, J.

1. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 were served with Notice dated 26th February, 2018 of the Suo Motu Criminal Contempt by the Registry. The above notice was to showcause as to why action for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act) should not Uday Shivaji Jagtap be taken against respondent nos. 1 and 2.

2. The contempt notice dated 26th February, 2018 was issued by the Registry consequent to the order dated 5th January, 2018 passed by this Court. The contempt notice, reads as under :

“Criminal Suo Motu Contempt Petition No.1 of 2018

To,

1. Mr. M.N. Navale

President of Sinhgad Technical

Education Soc. Off. Karve Road,

Pune

2. Mr. Sadashiv Mokashi,

Tax Recovery Officer (Central)

Salisbury Park, Pune

Whereas upon considering the material before it, Hon'ble Court is satisfied that there exists a prima facie case for issuance of a notice for considering action under Contempt of Courts Act against you.

AND WHEREAS the same having been registered in this Court as Suo-Motu Contempt Petition No.1 of 2018.

AND UPON hearing Adv. Mr. Nitin Dhumal for the petitioner, Adv. Mr. Sham Walve, for the Respondents present in the Court and the Court (Coram : M.S. SANKLECHA & MR. RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ) has on 05.01.2017 passed the following order in Writ Petition No.13099 of 2017.

TAKE THEREFORE NOTICE that the aforesaid suo-motu contempt petition has been fixed for hearing on the 05.03.2018 on which date you shall appear in person before this Court and shall continue to remain present during hearing on all subsequent dates on which this Court may seem convenient to fix the matter, till the proceeding is finally disposed off by the order of the Court, and to Show Cause as to why the action under Contempt of Court Act should not be initiated against you.

In case of your failure to appear as directed above and to show cause, this Court shall proceed to pass such orders as may deem fit and proper.

Witness Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, Chief Justice at Bombay, Aforesaid this 05th day of January, 2018.

SEAL

By the Court,

Sd/

For. Registrar (Judl). and Sealer

B.D. Cr.No.: CR06 01990

Dated : 26-2-18

that this Notice may please be returned duly served on or before 05.03.2018.

HIGH COURT, APPELLATE SIDE. BOMBAY, 2018

Sd/26.12.18

For Registrar (Judl-I)

Encl – Copy of the Criminal Suo Moto Contempt Petition No.1 of 2018.”

3. The Criminal Suo Moto Petition No.1 of 2018 is the order dated 5th January, 2018, passed by this Court as under :

“1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 10th November 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune (Tribunal) on an application for stay under Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(Act).

2. By the impugned order the Petitioner's application for stay of recovery of demand aggregating to Rs.142.98 Crores was granted on the condition of the Petitioner depositing Rs.18 Crores in three instalments

i.e. Rs.6 Crores each on 30th November 2017, 30th December 2017 and 15th January 2018 pending the disposal of the Petitioner Appeals for Assessment Years 2009 – 2010 to 2014 – 2015 by the Tribunal. The impugned order dated 10th November 2017 also granted an out of turn hearing on 18th January 2018 subject to the payment of Rs.18 Crores. However impugned order further records that in the absence of complying with the condition of deposit, the stay would stand vacated and the appeals would be heard in the normal course and not on an expeditious basis on 18th January 2018 as a stay granted matter.

3. This Petition was first mentioned on 28th November 2017 seeking an adinterim relief from depositing the sum of Rs.18Crores in three instalment as ordered by the Tribunal and a stay of recovery proceedings. However, at that time the Petitioner informed the Court that they are in no position to deposit any amo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(Bom) 1330

Cases Referred (3)