TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether leave to institute the suit without notice under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 became incompetent merely because interim injunction was refused; (ii) Whether the refusal of interim injunction against transfer called for interference in revision.
Issue (i): Whether leave to institute the suit without notice under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 became incompetent merely because interim injunction was refused.
Analysis: Leave under Section 80(2) depends on whether urgent and immediate relief is sought against the Government. Once leave is granted on satisfaction of urgency, the subsequent refusal of interim relief on merits does not retrospectively destroy the competence of the suit or justify treating the statutory notice requirement as revived. The grant of leave is not to be revisited merely because the interim application fails.
Conclusion: The suit was validly instituted without notice and the order holding it incompetent was illegal and was set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether the refusal of interim injunction against transfer called for interference in revision.
Analysis: The allegations of mala fides were found to be vague and unsupported against the transferring authority. The transfer had to be viewed in the context of administrative exigency, long posting at the same station, and the limited scope of interference with service transfers. No sufficient prima facie case for injunction was shown, and no failure of justice was made out to disturb the refusal in revision.
Conclusion: The dismissal of the injunction application was sustained.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent of setting aside the order that treated the suit as not maintainable, while the refusal of interim injunction against transfer was maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: Leave to sue without notice under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 remains effective once granted on urgency, and a later refusal of interim relief does not render the suit incompetent; interference with transfer orders is not warranted absent a prima facie case of mala fides or failure of justice.
TaxTMI 
