Their lordships need careful and competent personal secretaries to avoid mistakes in orders and judgments – discussion in view of glaring mistake observed in order of the Supreme Court digitally signed only by the court Master.

Earlier article on similar topic:

THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE SUPREME COURT NEED MORE CAREFUL ASSISTANCE OF SECRETARIES, COURT OFFICERS INCLUDING COUNSELS FOR PARTIES.          By: - CA DEV KUMAR KOTHARI      May 14, 2020

In earlier article learned author had discussed importance of team work and efficiency of all concerned starting from the time of filing of an appeal or petition and till final disposal and also publications of orders and judgments. The article was with reference to orders of the honorable Supreme Court in some other cases. Readers may refer to that article.

 Present article

This article is with reference to an order displayed on website of the SC as ‘ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS’  of the honorable Supreme Court which is digitally  signed only by  JAYANT KUMAR ARORA who is  Court Master  although name of Branch Officer of the Supreme Court  NISHA TRIPATHI also appears in place of signatures.  However, her digital signature is not appearing on the webpage for the order. The order copied from the webpage is reproduced below (with highlights added for the purpose of present study):

 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 & ANR. VERSUS M/S MAJESTIC DEVELOPERS [2021 (1) TMI 962 - SC ORDER]

 ITEM NO.3 Court 3 (Video Conferencing)  SECTION IV-A

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

 Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14708/2020 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-11-2019 in ITA No. 286/2018 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S MAJESTIC DEVELOPERS Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R.)

 Date : 20-01-2021

 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN HON'BLE

MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA HON'BLE

MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

 For Petitioner(s) Mr. Balbir Singh, ASG

Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv.

Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv.

Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                                                          O R D E R

 Having heard Sh. Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, for some time, we are of the view that the impugned Judgment does not warrant any interference. However, we make it clear that the observations as to the scope of Section 310(2) of the Income Tax Act, made in the impugned Judgment are qua the State of Karnataka, given the particular local act in that case.

In view of the above, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.

 Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                 (NISHA TRIPATHI)

COURT MASTER                                   BRANCH OFFICER

Anomalies noticed:

The order is not signed by honorable judges rather it is signed by officers of the Court. It is also not mentioned that it is signed by order of their lordships.

Though two name and designations of officers appear but it has been digitally signed by only one of officers.

We find that For Petitioner(s) Mr. Balbir Singh, ASG appeared with other four learned senior Advocates. Therefore we can say that at representation stage, team was available and for that purpose Petitioner ( Pr. CIT that means on account of GOI) fees has been paid for five advocates.

However on reading of the order we find that Sh. Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General was heard for some time.

There seems a mistake because, with due respect and regard, author feel that the expression ‘ heard for some time’  is not proper wordings. Counsels are heard it may be at length or briefly  ,as  it is considered proper  as required under the circumstances.

There is also no mention of perusal of records

Use of expression ‘heard for some time’  – can lead to inference that the honorable  judges,  hearing the case has not heard the counsels fully or thoroughly, particularly when another four advocates were also present for the petitioner. It can be a case that each advocate was present to explain some particular issue.

Hearing only one of counsel and that also only for some time can be a ground that fair hearing did not took place and therefore, this can be a ground for seeking review , rehearing on the matter in interest of justice.

Provisions referred:

On bare reading  of the order, author felt that there are mistakes in the order – because  Section 310 (2) of the Income-tax Act ,1961 is stated  in the order. So  to confirm, the author opened the Income-tax Act, 1961  and found that last section is section 298 so there is no section 310 in the Income-tax Act, 1961.

At cost of repetition particular paragraph from the order is reproduced again:

                       “However, we make it clear that the observations as to the scope of Section 310(2) of the Income Tax Act, made in the impugned Judgment are qua the State of Karnataka, given the particular local act in that case.

unquote

On bare reading it is clear that there is mistake because in later part of the paragraph reference is of local Act.

 On reading of the judgment of honorable  High Court author found that the expression ‘section 310 of the KMC Act’ has found place in the judgment for eleven times. There is no mistaken expression used as section 310 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the judgment of the High Court. 

From above discussion and discussion in earlier article, it again appears that Secretaries of judges, Court Officers ( including advocates) need to be more care full and duty full. Orders must be taken very seriously and care should be taken that there are is no such glaring mistakes.