In a writ petition, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the application. The court held that it could not review factual findings regarding the petitioner's affidavits concerning disconnections from payees under its writ jurisdiction.
Rule discharged; no orders as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Civil Jurisdiction
WRIT PETITION NO.5973 OF 2001
M/s.Mittal Constructions ...Petitioner.
V/s.
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents.
Mr.P.L.Bhujbal , adv. for the Petitioner.
Mr.B.M.Chatterjee , adv. for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.A.A.Garge, adv. for the Respondent No.3.
CORAM: F.I.Rebello &
J.H.Bhatia,JJ.
DATE : 15th April, 2009.
P.C.:
1. Petitioner has directly moved this Court in
respect of orders passed under Section 201 of the Income
Tax Act. All those orders were subsequently revised.
Statutory Remedy is available to the petitioner under
Section 246A (HA).
2. The contention of the petitioner is that he had
filed affidavits to show that the persons to whom the
amounts were supposed to be paid had infact no connection
with the petitioner.
3. These are purely findings of fact which this Court
cannot go into, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
: 2 :
4. In the light of this, rule discharged and no
orders as to costs.
(F.I.Rebello, J.)
(J.H.Bhatia, J.)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mits Mittal Constructions
Union of India
F.I.Rebello
J.H.Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court