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

2022 Supreme(Cal) 1547

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HARISH TANDON, SHAMPA DUTT PAUL, JJ.
KLG Tradefin Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ashoka Hawai And Shoes Private Limited – Respondent
APO NO. 53 OF 2022 With CS No.41 OF 2022 IA GA NO.1 OF 2022, APO NO. 54 OF 2022 With CS No. 40 OF 2022
Decided on : 15-07-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Suresh Sahni, Adv., Mr. Soumik Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Karuna Bose, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anirban Ray, Adv., Mr. VVV Sastry, Adv., Mr. Tridip Bose, Ms. Vidhi Sharma, Adv.

The Court can activate the process of law and direct authorities to investigate based on public policy.

Headnote:

Public Policy - Income Tax Investigation - Contract Act - Section 23, Code of Civil Procedure - Section 151 - [FACT OF THE CASE] The plaintiff lent money to the defendant, who claimed the transaction was not real but an accommodated entry. The Trial Court directed an investigation by the Income Tax authority. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The Court found the defense had a larger impact on society and the economic development of the country. [ISSUES] Whether the Court should remain a mute spectator to a sinister attempt to evade tax and seek blessings of the Court within the civil rights. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The Court can activate the process of law and direct authorities to investigate based on public policy. [FINAL DECISION] The Court found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

Harish Tandon, J.

1. The seminal point involved in the instant appeal is whether the Court can pass an order directing the Income Tax authority to make an investigation over the transactions between the parties to be unconscionable and opposed to public policy and submit the report for further course of action, in a suit simplicitor for recovery of money lent and advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant.

2. The plaintiff has approached the Division Bench with an Intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the letters patent assailing the said order primarily raising an above point and not on the ground of refusal to pass an appropriate interim orders which, according to the plaintiff may be dealt with at the time of final disposal of the interlocutory application. Therefore, the consideration is restricted to the above point and the competence and jurisdiction of the Court to embark its journey to such so-called difficult terrain beyond the conceivable limits and jurisdiction bestowed upon it under the law.

3. The prelude to the litigation is required to be adumbrated and ensued when the plaintiff-appellant advanced a sum of Rs. 65 lakhs through bank transactions in favour of the defendant-respondent with clear stipulation that the aforesaid amount is repayable together with an interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The aforesaid amount was lent and advanced on diverse dates between 18th January, 2020 and 18th September, 2020 corroborated with the documentary evidence more particularly, the bank statement of the plaintiff’s bank account. It is undeniable that the part payment to the tune of Rs.1,37,650/- was made on 10th October, 2020 on account of the repayment of interest and the TDS was also deducted of the specified amount from time to time during the Financial Year 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. The suit was filed when the plaintiff-appellant demanded the return of the said amount together with an interest and the defendant neglected and failed to pay the said amount.

4. It is pertinent to record that the letter of demand for repayment of the amount together with an accrued interest thereupon was called upon the defendant-respondent which has been duly replied to. Interestingly, a plea was taken by the defendant-respondent in the said reply that the alleged transaction was not real but is an accommodated entry or “Jamma Kharji” and, therefore, the claim is fraudulent and fictitious as the plaintiff-appellant never actually gave the said amount from its own resources or the income but the unaccounted money in cash was given by the defendant-respondent to the plaintiff-appellant and, therefore, there was no real transactions entered into by and between the parties. Even the same defence has been projected and/or repleted in the written objection filed by the defendant-respondent to an application of the plaintiff-appellant under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. Such being the basic facts discerned from the restrictive pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court not only refused to pass an interim order on an application but upon noticing the startling facts emerged from the respective stands of the parties directed the member (investigation), Central Board of Direct Taxes to cause an investigation into the monetary dealing being the subject matter of the suit to file a report on the returnable date. The sole basis of passing the aforesaid direction as appeared from the findings returned in the impugned order that the parties have precipitated an illegal transaction expressly forbidden by law and the Court upon a prime facie finding cannot act as a mute spectator.

6. Ironically not only the plaintiff-appellant appears to be critical on the direction passed by the Trial Court in the impugned order but the defendant-respondent also, though feebly, accepted the stand of the plaintiff in supporting the arguments so advanced at the Bar.

7. Since the important and vital aspects ov

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top