AND WRI T PETI TI ON No.2242 of 2009

ORDER:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department for the petitioner, and Ms. Keerthana Reddy, learned counsel, representing Mr. S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the Settlement Commission in Settlement Application No.502/AP-II/4/2000-

IT.

3. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that pending the instant writ petition before this Court, the respondent No.2 Company had got amalgamated by way of a company petition i.e. Company Petition No.67 of 2011, decided on 09.09.2011, along with batch of company petitions. It is further submitted that since the respondent No.2 Company itself pending the writ petition was amalgamated with M/s. Cryogenic Industrial Consultants Private Limited, nothing further would survive and the entire dispute now raised by the petitioner is only of academic interest.

4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, on the other hand, referring to the order passed in Company Petition No.67 of 2011 submits that the Income Tax Department does not seem to have been made a party in those proceedings, nor were they noticed or taken into confidence while the company petition was allowed. Therefore, she contends that pendency of the present dispute and the claim raised by the Income Tax Department could not be apprised to the Hon’ble Court while the company petition was allowed.

5. However, upon due consideration of the factual matrix of the case, more particularly going into the contents of the order passed by this High Court in Company Petition No.67 of 2011 and batch, it appears that it was categorically brought before the authorities concerned that as on date when the Company Petition No.67 of 2011 and batch was filed and as on date when the said Company Petitions stood disposed of, there were no secured or unsecured creditors available so far as respondent No.2 is concerned in the present writ petition. It was in this context that the Company Petition No.67 of 2011 and batch stood allowed.

6. So far as the present writ petition is concerned, admittedly no claim has till date been crystallized flowing from the claim raised by the petitioner herein, and down the line respondent No.2 Company has got amalgamated by virtue of the order passed by this High Court in Company Petition No.67 of 2011 and batch. In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition, as such, as of now is only of academic interest and nothing substantial would be achieved even if it is finally adjudicated upon.

7. Accordingly, we do not intend to proceed further with the instant writ petition and the same stands disposed of at this stage.

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

P.SAM KOSHY, J SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J Date: 03.09.2025 GSD