LexASSOCIATION OF OLD SETTLERS OF SIKKIM PRESIDENT SHRI RAM CHANDRA MUNDRA S/O LATE MURLIDHAR MUNDRA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARY GENERAL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 10 S.C.R. 368 ASSOCIATION OF OLD SETTLERS OF SIKKIM PRESIDENT SHRI RAM CHANDRA MUNDRA S/O LATE MURLIDHAR MUNDRA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARY GENERAL & ANR. (Miscellaneous Application D.No. 5112 of 2023) In (Writ Petition (C) No. 59/2013) FEBRUARY 08, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Judgments/Orders – Correction of – [2023] 10 SCR 289 – Separate judgments of Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna – Judgments were passed disposing of Writ Petition(C) No.59/2013 along with the connected writ petition – Substantial amendments were made to the original writ petitions however, such amendments were not brought to the notice of Supreme Court – As a result, the unamended writ petition was taken into consideration for the purpose of referring to the pleadings in the Judgment of Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna – Present Miscellaneous Applications filed seeking correction of certain phrases in paragraphs 10(a) and 77 of the judgment of Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna – Corrections accordingly made – Income Tax Act, 1961 – Explanation to Clause 26 (AAA) of s.10 – Sikkim Subjects Regulations, 1961 – Sikkim Subject Rules, 1961. CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Miscellaneous Application D.No.5112 of 2023 in Writ Petition (C) No.59 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.01.2023 of the Supreme Court of India in W.P. (C) No.59 of 2013. With Miscellaneous Application D.No.5236 of 2023 In Writ Petition (C) No.59 of 2013, Miscellaneous Application D.No.5645 of 2023 In Writ Petition (C) No.59 of 2013 And Review Petition (C) D.Nos. 5450, 5075, 5065 of 2023 Tushar Mehta, SG, N Venkataraman, A.S.G., C. S. Vaidyanathan, Dr. (Mrs.) Doma T. Bhutia, Sanjay R. Hegde, Pradeep Rai, Sr. Adv., H [2023] 10 S.C.R. 368 : 2023 INSC 106 A B C D E F G H 369 R Rao, Mrs. Gargi Khanna, C. Bharati, Devashish Bharukha, Pranay Ranjan, Vikrant Yadav, Rajat Nair, Sughosh Subramanium, Bhuvan Kapoor, Kanu Agrawal, Digvijay Dam, Madhav Sinhal, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, A. K. Sharma, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Sameer Abhyankar, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Ms. Vani Vandana Chhetri, Rudro Chatterjee, Vivek Basneit, Atul Arora, Masoom Raj Singh, Shariq Nishar, Md. Tanvir, Anas Tanwir, Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Senthil Jagadeesan, Ms. Shivani Vij, Abhinav Raghuvanshi, Ms. Rajshree Rai, Vinay Kumar, Arnav Mittal, Ms. Ritika Gaur, Ms. Banshika Garg, Shashank Rai, Vipin Kumar Bharti, Aishwarya Pratap Shahi, M/s. Arputham Aruna and Co, Narendra Kumar, Ms. Neha Rathi, Advs. for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was passed: ORDER Petitioner No.4, the Union of India as well as the State of Sikkim have filed applications seeking correction of certain phrases in paragraphs 10(a) and 77 of my judgment (B.V. Nagarathna, J) disposing of Writ Petition (C) NO.59/2013 along with the connected writ petition on 13.01.2023. It is noted that, in the said writ petition(s), there was an amended writ petition filed, pursuant to an application seeking amendment, namely, I.A. No.3A of 2013, being allowed on 02.08.2013 and the petitioners being granted leave to file the amended writ petition vide paragraphs 4(a) to 4(y) of I.A.No.3A of 2013. Consequently, the amendments were made in the Writ Petition. Unfortunately, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and other counsel appearing for the respective parties in the said matter did not bring to the notice of this Court the aforesaid substantial amendments made to the original writ petition(s). It was, infact, their duty to bring to the notice of this Court the said amendments, which were twenty five in number. As a result, the unamended writ petition has been taken into consideration for the purpose of referring to the pleadings in the judgment of B.V. Nagarathna, J. Now, Miscellaneous Applications have been filed seeking correction of the judgment as if the error has occurred from the side of the Court by ignoring the fact that the amendments brought to the original writ petition(s) were not brought to the notice of this Court! ASSOCIATION OF OLD SETTLERS OF SIKKIM PRESIDENT v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARY GENERAL A B C D E F G H 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 10 S.C.R. However, having heard learned Solicitor General, learned Senior Advocates and all other learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, we think it is just and proper and in the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.