Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, being a co-noticee, was entitled to have the rejection of its declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 quashed and to be accorded the same treatment as the main noticee whose declaration had been accepted pursuant to earlier directions.
Analysis: The declaration of the main noticee had already been held to be wrongly rejected, with the result that the remanded proceedings were treated as revived from inception and falling within the category of pending litigation. Once the respondents themselves stated that the main noticee had been issued the discharge form on the basis of that earlier direction, there was no reason to deny the same benefit to the petitioner, who stood in the position of a co-noticee and was similarly placed on the material facts. The rejection orders therefore did not accord with the scheme's object or with the treatment already granted in the connected matter.
Conclusion: The rejection of the petitioner's declaration was unsustainable and was quashed. The respondent was directed to accept the declaration and complete verification for issuance of the discharge certificate.