SUNIL VASUDEVA & ORS. versus SUNDAR GUPTA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 8 S.C.R. 1190 · Decided: 02-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
SUNIL VASUDEVA & ORS.
v.
SUNDAR GUPTA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5140 of 2019)
JULY 02, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.293 – One late ‘KL’ and his son
‘PG’ constituted HUF which owned the subject property standing
in their joint names, also having other properties at Calcutta –‘KL’
instituted suit in 1957 before the High Court of Calcutta against
‘PG’ claiming the subject property including other properties as his
self-acquired properties – Respondents are the sons of ‘PG’–
Appellants are the legal heirs of late VNV, who was the lawyer of
‘KL’  and who purchased the subject property in open auction
conducted by the Income Tax Department – In 1985, the respondent
nos.1-3 filed Title Suit in Delhi inter alia seeking declaration to
continue to be the owners of the suit property – Said respondents
also filed Writ Petition No.18500(W) of 1985 against the Union of
India and the appellants in the High Court of Calcutta for declaring
that the purported sale to VNV and issuance of the confirmation
certificate of sale is null and void – Judgment reserved by High
Court of Calcutta in March/April, 1986 – Writ Petition dismissed by
the Single Judge of the High Court on 26th Oct. 1990 – In the
meanwhile, the Title Suit was dismissed on 3rd Oct. 1986 –
Respondents filed application for recalling the order dtd. 26th Oct.
1990 and for deciding the writ petition on merits – Single Judge of
the High Court of Calcutta vide order dtd. 20th Nov. 1998 recalled
the order dtd. 26th Oct.1990 inter alia with the direction to hear the
matter on merits– Appellants filed appeal– Division Bench of the
High Court of Calcutta did not interfere – Appellants filed SLP –
Dismissed – Thereafter, appellants filed application in the disposed
of Writ Petition No.18500(W) of 1985 inter alia praying that the
respondents be restrained from proceeding with any advertisement
for sale of suit property– Single Judge of the High Court vide order
dtd. 31st March, 2006 held that the application was not maintainable
– Respondents filed appeal – Dismissed vide order dtd. 19th Oct.
   [2019] 8 S.C.R. 1190
1190
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1191
2012– Respondents filed Review Application against the said order
and the order dtd. 31St March, 2006 – By the impugned order, the
order dtd. 19th Oct. 2012 was reviewed and consequently the order
dtd. 31st March, 2006 was also set aside, directing the Writ Petition
No.18500(W) of 1985 to be heard on merits – On appeal, held:
s.293 puts complete bar of filing suit in any civil court against the
revenue/income tax authority – Mandate of law remained unnoticed
when the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.
18500(W) of 1985 passed order on 26th Oct. 1990 relegating the
parties to address in the alleged pending Civil Suit No. 471 of 1985
in Delhi although it was dismissed much prior to the pronouncement
of the Judgment dtd. 26th Oct. 1990 – Even in the LPA, either party
did not bring it to the notice of the Court, the mandate of law as
envisaged u/s.293 – High Court took note of the same in its review
jurisdiction concluding that there appears to be an error apparent
on the face of record and consequently allowed the application for
review, recalling the order dated 19th Oct. 2012 and setting aside
the order dtd. 31st March, 2006 – In the facts and circumstances,
the issues on merits raised in the Writ Petition No.18500(W) of 1985
not  dilated upon – But, if the civil suit was not maintainable as
alleged in view of s.293 and this was the purported defence of the
respondents and of the Income Tax Department, no party could be
left remediless and whatever the grievance, the party has raised
before the Court of law, has to be examined on its own merits – No
error committed by the High Court in passing the impugned judgment
–Writ Petition No.18500(W) of 1985 be decided by the High Court
of Calcutta on its own merits, expeditiously as possible – Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. 9, r.2.
Practice & Procedure – Review – Principles for – Discussed
– Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.114.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 puts
a complete bar of filing suit in any civil court against the revenue/
income tax authority and the mandate of law remain unnoticed
when the order came to be passed by the Single Judge of the
High Court in Writ Petition No.18500(W) of 1985 decided on
26th October, 1990 whil

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.