Revenue's Motion to Modify Final Order Dismissed

The Court dismissed the Revenue's Notices of Motion seeking to modify a final order from 2015 in disposed writ petitions. The Court held that the Revenue's application, based on post-disposal communications regarding surplus amounts, constituted a separate cause of action and could not be entertained in the disposed petitions. It was emphasized that the Revenue could pursue appropriate proceedings regarding the surplus amounts but could not modify the previous order. The Court also allowed time for assessment before releasing surplus amounts, ultimately dismissing both motions without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Modification of final order dated 15th October, 2015 in disposed of writ petitions.
2. Surplus amount in the accounts of defaulters post disposal of writ petitions.
3. Challenge to prohibitory and attachment orders issued by Revenue in relation to membership card.
4. Entertaining application post disposal of writ petitions.
5. Cause of action for Revenue post disposal of writ petitions.
6. Dismissal of Notices of Motion.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed Notices of Motion seeking to modify the final order dated 15th October, 2015, which disposed of Writ Petition Nos. 215 of 2003 and 217 of 2003. The trigger for these motions was a communication from the Income Tax Recovery Officer regarding surplus amounts in the accounts of defaulters Mr. Bharat Khona and Mr. Akhil K. Dalal, arising from the auction proceeds of their membership rights.

2. The disposed writ petitions challenged prohibitory and attachment orders issued by the Revenue in relation to membership cards held by the defaulters. The Court upheld the challenge, citing a precedent where it was established that a membership card is a personal privilege and not a right. Following the disposal of the petitions, the Court became Functus Officio, meaning it could not entertain further applications related to the disposed petitions.

3. The cause of action for the Revenue, based on the communication received post disposal of the writ petitions, was deemed a separate and distinct cause of action. The Court held that the Revenue was free to pursue appropriate proceedings regarding the surplus amounts mentioned in the communication but could not modify the order dated 15th October, 2015, through the present Notices of Motion.

4. The Court emphasized that the communication dated 4th May, 2016, which prompted the Revenue's application, constituted a separate cause of action. The application seeking modification of the previous order could not be entertained in a disposed of petition. The Court also noted that the Revenue was at liberty to take suitable legal actions concerning the surplus amounts.

5. The original petitioner, Stock Exchange, agreed not to release the surplus amounts to the defaulting members for a period of eight weeks, allowing the Revenue time to assess its legal position and take necessary steps. Consequently, both Notices of Motion were dismissed, with no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the limitations on modifying final orders in disposed writ petitions, emphasized the separation of causes of action, and highlighted the importance of adhering to legal procedures post disposal of petitions.

---