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

1966 Supreme(P&H) 202

JINDRA LAL, I.D.DUA, P.C.PANDIT
R. B. Seth Gujar Mal Modi – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Income-tax Punjab, ([1967] 64 I. T. R. – Respondent


Judgment

JINDRA LAL, J.

1. The points involved in this petition are of considerable importance and not free from difficulty. The amount involved is substantial and the party aggrieved by any decision given by me is likely to go up in appeal in Letters Patent. Some of the points involved are such as could have fairly come up to this court on a reference under section 66 of the Income-tax Act and dealt with by a Division Bench.

2. In view of this, I am of the opinion that this petition should be heard by a larger Bench. Let the papers of this case be placed before my Lord the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to hear this petition. Parties are keen to have the matter decided expeditiously.

3. Mr. Awasthy, learned counsel for the respondents, contends that the petitioners in the garb of elaborating their arguments are really introducing and urging new points and making out a new case. Since the whole matter will be disposed of by a larger Bench, this question can also be urged there.

Order of Division Bench

I.D.DUA, J.

4 This petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution at the instance of four brothers was admitted by a Bench of this court on March 12, 1964, with













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