Quashed

mr naman patel v. union of india and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2007WP/3034/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in a Writ Petition, quashed and set aside the order dated 11th July, 2006, passed by a Tax Recovery Officer, remanding the matter for fresh determination to consider the petitioner's possession and share transfer details. Contentions were kept open.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dated 11th July, 2006 and remanded the matter to the Tax Recovery Officer for fresh determination.

mr naman patel Vs union of india and 2 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3034 OF 2006

Mr.Naman Patel

..Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr.Shailesh Shah with Jitendra Jain i/b. Amit Shroff with Ashish Mashru for the Petitioner. Mr.A.N.Kotangale, A.G.P. for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶12

J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.

¶13

DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY,2007

¶14

P.C.

¶15

1.	H	eard	the learned Counsel for the parties.
Rule.	Rule	is	made returnable forthwith.	The	learned
Counsel	for	the	Respondents waives	service.	By
consent,	taken		up for final hearing.	By	this
Petition,	the		Petitioner is challenging	the	order
dated	11th	July,	2006 passed by the	Tax	Recovery

¶16

Officer under Rule 11 of the Schedule-II of the Income

¶17

Tax Act.

¶18

2.	The	main gri	evance of	the Petiti	oner is	that
the	Petitioner	claim	s to	be	in	actual	an	d	physical
possession	of	the	Flat	since	1995	and	also	that	the
Share	Certificate	of	the	Co-o	perative	So	ciety	has	been
duly	transferred	in	the	name	of	the	Petition	er	in the
year	1995 its	elf.	The	refore,	the	main	conte	ntion	of

¶19

:2:

¶20

the	Petitioner is that the Tax	Recovery	Offi	cer	has
not	considered all these aspects,	while	pas	sing	an
impugned	order dated 11th July,2006.	In	view	of	the
same,	on this limited ground,	as all	the	r	elevant
facts	and circumstances and the	alleged	factum	of	the
possession	has not been duly	consid	ered	by	Tax
Recovery	Officer, we quash and	set asid	e th	e im	pugned
order	dated 11th July,2006 and rema	nd back	the	same	to
the	Tax Recovery Officer for	a fresh	deter	mination	of
the	aforesaid issues. It is mad	e clear	that	all	the
contentions	of both the parties	are	express	ly	kept

¶21

open. The Writ Petition stands disposed of

¶22

accordingly.

¶23

(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)

¶24

(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)

mr naman patel v. union of india and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

mr naman patel v. union of india and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambalal Sarabhai Enter- Prises Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pradeep Kashiram Sawardekar Vs State Election Commission and Ors.

Mahendra Waman Pagare and Anr. Vs the Chief Officer, Mhada and 6 Ors.

The Commissione Rof Income-Tax,Central-Iimumbai Vs the Income-Taxsettlement Commission and Ors.

Jaykumar Babulal Chouhan Vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kolhapur and Ors.

Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.