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 orders respondent to provide documents for pending trial after intervention. Order ensures fair defense opportunity.</h1> <h3>UDAY NAVINCHANDRA SANGANI Versus VIKRANT PAL SINGH AND 2</h3> UDAY NAVINCHANDRA SANGANI Versus VIKRANT PAL SINGH AND 2 - TMI Issues:- Direction to provide copy of documents in 42 gunny bags seized by police and now with Income-tax DepartmentAnalysis:The judgment revolves around the issue of providing a copy of documents in 42 gunny bags seized by the police and now in the custody of the Income-tax Department. The applicant sought direction for the respondent No.1 to provide these documents for the defense in a pending trial. The applicant referred to a previous court order and highlighted the respondent's commitment to supply the documents as per the law. Despite the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court, the documents were not provided, leading to the current application.The applicant's counsel argued that the necessary documents are crucial for the defense in the pending trial. Respondent No.1, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Bhatt, assured that the required documents would be provided upon payment of fees. The court, after hearing both parties and examining the evidence, concluded that the respondent No.1 must supply the copy of documents in the 42 gunny bags to the applicant on payment of requisite fees. The court allowed the applicant or their counsel to inspect the documents before submitting an application for copies. Respondent No.1 was directed to provide the certified copies within four weeks of receiving the application.Furthermore, the court clarified that the order was specific to the present case and aimed to ensure a fair opportunity for the applicant to defend in the pending trial. The judgment emphasized that it should not be considered a precedent. With these directions and observations, the application was disposed of, and the rule was made absolute to the specified extent.
TaxTMI 