Business NewsNews

Constitutional validity of Aadhaar has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India in September 2018. Consequently, in terms of Section 139AA of Income Tax Act., 1961 and order dated 30-6-2018 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Aadhaar-PAN linking is mandatory now which has to be completed till 31.3.2019 by the PAN holders requiring filing of Income Tax Return.

Procedure for Aadhaar PAN linking has been published vide notification no. 7 dated 29-6-2017 by Pr. Director General of Income Tax(Systems).

Income Tax Department

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vibhu Bakhru, J. dismissed a petition seeking a writ to be issued to set aside the reply under Section 13 (3A) of  Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) given by the respondent Bank against the representation filed by the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged the proceedings instituted by the Bank for enforcement of the security interest under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner had defaulted to the payment of certain loans payable to the Bank and resultantly he was declared a non-performing asset. He was issued a notice by the Bank under Section 13(2). The petitioner made a representation thereagainst. The Bank responded to the said representation, but it was received by the petitioner beyond a period of 15 days from the date of communication of the representation as provided under Section 13(3-A). The petitioner claimed that due to the said lapse, the proceedings under SARFAESI were rendered valid.

The only question for consideration before the Court was whether the delay by a lender in communicating its decision to reject a representation made by a borrower under Section 13(3-A) vitiates the proceedings initiated in terms of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act.

The High Court after giving due consideration to the law on the subject held that the said proceedings did not become infructuous merely due to delay in communicating the response as aforementioned. The Court perused various decisions of the Supreme Court including ITC Ltd. v. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 237 wherein it was held that provisions under Section 13(3-A) were mandatory and failure on the part of the creditor to respond to the representation of borrower vitiate the recovery proceedings. Nonetheless, it also examined the relevant facts and concluded that the creditor had, in fact, examined the borrower’s representation even though it had failed to furnish a reply to the representation made by the borrower. In view of the above, the Supreme Court held that the borrower was not entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relying on the said decision, the High Court held, the requirement that the secured creditor considered the objection/representation of the borrower as mandatory but the requirement, that he communicates its conclusion within 15 days cannot be held to be so. In view thereof, the petitioner’s contention was held to be sans merit. The petition was then dismissed. [Kannu Aditya India Ltd. v. SBI, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12208, Order dated 26-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar, J., allowed a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the trial judge, whereby his application for seeking extension for filing written statement beyond the statutory period was rejected.

The main issue that arose was whether the period of filing written statement can be extended beyond the time period which is prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

The Court observed that as per the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rani Kusum v. Kanchan Devi, (2005) 6 SCC 705, the parties to a dispute are bound by the time frame provided under Order-VIII Rule 1 for filing written statement, however the Court is not bound by the same. The Court further cited the case of Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480 and held that the provision under O.VIII R-1 is merely directory in nature and the Court can, in appropriate cases extend the time frame provided under this provision. It further held that the dispute revolved around a property admeasuring 22 acres and hence the petitioner had substantial interest in it. Further, the petitioner had provided sufficient reasons in his application seeking extension of time but without giving due consideration to those reasons, the trial court had rejected his application. The Court set aside the order of the trial judge and ordered that the written statement of the petitioner shall be taken on record. [Dukhi Mirdha v. Ramdas Mirdha,2018 SCC OnLine Jhar 1292, order dated 26-09-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. dismissed a civil writ petition filed by the petitioner against his transfer from Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Jaipur to District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jaisalmer.

The petitioner was employed as a class IV employee in the Commission at Jaipur for last 24 years. By the impugned order, as many as six employees including the petitioner were transferred. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal who directed the Commission to consider the representation of the petitioner. However, the Commission declined his representation. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The High Court, while perusing the record, noted that the only grievance put forth by the appellant was that he had a son and four daughters, who were of marriageable age, and therefore, he ought to have been retained at Jaipur. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Gobardhan Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 11 SCC 402, which dealt with the scope and extent of judicial review in matters of transfer of an employee, the High Court observed, by a catena of judgments it is now well settled that transfer is an incident of service. Unless transfer is effected in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or having adverse consequences on conditions of service, the same is not to be interfered with by the Courts as an Appellate Authority. In light of the discussion as mentioned herein, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned transfer order as passed by the Competent Authority. The petition was thereby dismissed. [Vinod Kumar Bairwa v.  Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 1358, dated 29-5-2018]