Skip to main content

Decisions of Appellate Courts must show independent application of mind

In STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. VERSUS PREM KUMAR SHUKLA & ANR, appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the State against the order of the single judge bench of Allahabad High Court.

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench objecting to the fact that except, reproducing paras 7 to 15 from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, there is no independent application of mind at all by the Division Bench.

The Supreme Court also held that this is not the manner in which the Division Bench should have decided and disposed of the writ appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court has not exercised the appellate jurisdiction vested in it. There must be an independent application of mind and at least some independent reasoning to be given by the appellate Court while deciding and disposing of the writ appeal. 

The court held that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ appeal is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. However, as nothing has been further discussed by the Division Bench of the High Court on merits, we have no other alternative but to remand the matter to the High Court to decide the writ appeal afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits and pass a speaking reasoned order.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more