Court recalls judgment due to lack of notice in appeal, sets timeline for filing affidavits, and schedules appeal hearing. The Court found that due to the lack of notice served on the respondent in the appeal, justice would be best served by recalling the judgment dated ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court recalls judgment due to lack of notice in appeal, sets timeline for filing affidavits, and schedules appeal hearing.
The Court found that due to the lack of notice served on the respondent in the appeal, justice would be best served by recalling the judgment dated 12.02.2018. The Court ordered the recall of the judgment, disposed of the miscellaneous application, and directed the appeal to be listed for further consideration. The respondent was instructed to file a counter affidavit within three weeks, with a provision for a rejoinder to be filed within three weeks thereafter. The appeal was scheduled to proceed after six weeks to ensure all parties have the opportunity to present their arguments effectively.
Issues: Lack of notice served on respondent in appeal, opportunity to make submissions, relevance of previous judgment, appropriate course for applicant, recalling judgment, filing counter affidavit, timeline for filing.
In the present case, the main issue revolved around the lack of notice served on the respondent in the appeal, which deprived the respondent of the opportunity to make submissions. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that due to this lack of notice, the respondent was unable to present their case effectively. Additionally, the counsel highlighted certain other issues in the appeal and referenced a previous judgment by the Court in a related matter.
On the other hand, the learned ASG representing the Department acknowledged that the respondent was not served in the appeal but suggested that the appropriate course for the respondent would be to file a review petition. He also pointed out that the applicant's case fell within the purview of a judgment delivered by the Court on a specific date.
After considering the arguments presented, the Court found that since the respondent was not served in the appeal, the ends of justice would be best served by recalling the judgment dated 12.02.2018 concerning Appeal No. 2793 of 2018. Consequently, the Court ordered the recall of the judgment and disposed of the miscellaneous application, directing the appeal to be listed for further consideration.
Furthermore, the Court instructed the learned counsel for the respondent to file a counter affidavit in the appeal within three weeks, with a provision for a rejoinder to be filed within three weeks thereafter. The Court scheduled the appeal to be listed after a period of six weeks to proceed with the case effectively and ensure all parties have the opportunity to present their arguments comprehensively.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
