TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses appeal seeking certificate for Supreme Court, citing delay in filing application.</h1> <h3>KM Joseph Binoy Versus Union Of India And Others (and Other Writ Petitions)</h3> The court dismissed the appellant's petition seeking a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court's judgment, citing the delay in ... Appeal To Supreme Court Issues:1. Appeal for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court.2. Interpretation of Article 134A of the Constitution regarding the procedure for granting a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court.3. Maintainability of an application filed long after the delivery of the judgment.Analysis:1. The appellant filed a petition seeking a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court's judgment. The original petition challenged section 44AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as ultra vires the Constitution of India and lacking legislative competence. The High Court upheld its earlier decisions and dismissed the appeal, citing precedents from other cases. The appellant later filed an application for the certificate after a significant delay, which raised the question of its maintainability.2. The court examined Article 134A of the Constitution, which outlines the procedure for granting a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. The article specifies that the High Court may grant a certificate on its own motion or upon an oral application made immediately after the judgment. The court emphasized that the article does not allow for the filing of a written application after a considerable delay. The court referred to previous decisions from various High Courts to support its interpretation of the article.3. Based on the interpretation of Article 134A and the precedents cited, the court held that the delayed application for the certificate was not maintainable. The court dismissed the appellant's petition seeking the certificate and also rejected another application filed to condone the delay in rectifying defects. The court's decision was grounded in the procedural requirements outlined in the Constitution and supported by established legal principles from previous judgments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
