Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Delayed justice - WP of 2001 decided after more than 18 years in one hearing. This shows justice delayed is justice denied.

DEVKUMAR KOTHARI
18-Year Tax Dispute Resolved: Court Decision Highlights Judicial Delays, Calls for Improved Case Management and Timely Engagement A writ petition filed in 2001 concerning a reassessment notice was resolved by the Madras High Court in December 2019, taking over 18 years for a decision. The case, involving a tax dispute, highlights significant delays in the judicial process, attributed to factors like adjournments and the cause list system. The article suggests that better case management and timely notifications could expedite hearings and reduce backlog. It emphasizes the need for parties to actively engage in the process to avoid prolonged litigation. The case underscores the adage 'justice delayed is justice denied.' (AI Summary)

2019 (12) TMI 881 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

M/S. GOLDEN SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD., P. SUNDARAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) , THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 

Original assessment was made on 22032001 following notification dated  7th April 1998  and clarification dated  21101999 which was in force and has remained in force.

Reassessment notice was issued within 77 days from date of original assessment.

Writ Petition of 2001 was against notice dated 06062001 for reassessment.

Writ Petition was filed during year 2001 on the website of Madras High Court,  details / history of case is found as per the following webpage taken as two screen shots: 

As per above webpage:

Filing Number: 1013741/2001Filing Date: 01-01-2001
Registration Number: 13741/2001Registration Date: 01-01-2001

The above  dates of filing and registry  seems wrong , may be by default dates are taken 01012001. This is because when notice under challenge is dated 06062001, WP will be filed after receipt of such notice and cannot factually be 01012001. The judgment is available on website as it is very recent one.

We find  case has appeared in cause list for   hearing on 13072019,  20072019, 09122019,10122019, and 16122019.

Even if we assume that the WP was filed at end of year 2001 we find that judgment has been delivered during last fortnight of year 2019. That means it took more than 18 years in disposal of the WP, although the matter involved was simple.

From the case status as seen above it can be said that till 12072019  the matter was not fixed for hearing and / or was not heard at any time. Therefore, for long period of  more than  18  years and  six months   the matter was lying in cold bag.

 It appears that only on 10122019  AND  16122019  the case was  fixed for final hearing, it was at most  heard on two days  and judgment has been passed on the  day of hearing  itself. Before that,  the case was not heard but  adjourned for some reasons like paucity of time or on prayer of advocate of any side etc.

This shows that  if cases are monitored, fixed for hearing with seriousness and parties to case also take it seriously, such matters can be disposed off in a short time. However,  as per our system, including delaying tactics adopted, and liberal approach in granting adjournments, the disposal of cases is delayed and pending cases list is expanding. 

Cause lists are also attributable to delay:

Experience shows that cause list system of notice to parties is also an important reason for delay in justice. We find suddenly a matter appear is cause list and then it may run in the cause list for several days but may not be heard.

A system of reasonable notice should be adopted, whereby parties to case should be informed of date of hearing. Sufficient time of say four months should be allowed so that parties can file their paper books, written notes etc. and serve a copy on opposite party and opposite party can file rejoinder etc. And by the time of hearing, parties to case are ready to represent the case. In such circumstances, adjournments shall be reduced, and hearings and disposal will be expedited.

If any case is not appearing in cause list within a reasonable time, the petitioner or even opposite party should inform the Registry Office of the Court and request for fixing a date of hearing.

In the case under study, if the parties had also taken an initiative, perhaps case was not kept pending for such a long period of time.

2019 (12) TMI 881 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

M/S. GOLDEN SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD., P. SUNDARAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) , THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles