LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

SRI NANDLAL TEJMAL KOTHARI versus THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 575 · Decided: 03-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Disposed off

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

case*. 
SRI NANDLAL TEJMAL KOTHARI 
v. 
THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF 
INCOME TAX AND ORS. 
APRIL 3, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Appeal-Controversy in-Held covered by judgment in C.B. Gautam's 
Income Tax Act, 1961-P. UD( l)-Compulso1y purchase. 
*C.B. Gautam v. Union of India, [1993] 1 SCC 78, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3624 of 
1986. 
From the Judgment nd Order dated 11/12.3.86 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W.P. No. 11570 of 1985. 
Mukul Mudgal for the ApI>ellant. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The controversy raised in this appeal is covered by the judgment of 
this Court in C.B. Gautam v. Union of India, [1993] 1 SCC 78 wherein it 
was held that : 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
"31. The recording of reasons which lead to the passing of the F 
order is basically intended to serve a two-fold purpose : 
(1) that the "party aggrieved" in the proceeding before (sic the 
appropriate authority) acquires knowledge of the reasons and 
in a proceeding before the High Court or the Supreme Court G 
(Since there is no right of appeal or revision), it has an 
opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons which persuaded 
the authority to pass an order adverse to his interest were 
erroneous, irrational or irrelevant, and 
(2) that the obligation to record reasons and convey the same to H 
575 
576 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
the party concerned operates as a deterrent against possible 
arbitrary action by the quasi-judicial or the executive 
authority invested with judicial powers. 
42. We realise that if order for compulsory purchase of the proper-
ty is made hereafter the intending vendor will suffer to some extent 
B 
by reason of the fact that he will get the purchase amount several 
years after the time he would have got it had the impugned order 
been held to be valid. But on the other hand, however, he would 
have retained the possession of the property in question. Taking 
into account these factors and taking note of the fact that the 
C 
immovable properties in urban areas have gone up steeply in value 
during the last few years, we direct that in case an order for 
compulsory purchase is made the Central Government shall pay 
to the intending seller the amount of the apparent consideration 
plus interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date the impugned 
order was made. 
D 
E 
F 
50. We, accordingly, clarify by this supplemental direction to be 
read as part of the judgment that in respect of cases other than 
that of petitioner - C.B. Gautam, the period of two months referred 
to in Section 269-UD(l) shall be reckoned with reference to the 
date of disposal of each of such pending matters either before this 
Court or before the High Courts as the case may be. Where, 
however, the stay orders inhibiting the authorities from taking 
further proceedings are vacated, the period referred to in the said 
Section 269-UD(l) shall be reckoned with reference to the date 
of such vacating of the stay orders. This clarification and further 
direction shall be supplemental to and be treated a.s parts of the 
main judgment." 
Following the above ratio, this appeal is disposed of. No costs. 
T.N.A. 
Appeal disposed of.