2006 (10) TMI 220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to show that the three units are managed by one and there is no reason for clubbing. The appellant preferred an appeal and the matter was heard by the first respondent consisting of two members, viz. The Vice-President and the Judicial Member. Each of them differed on the issue of clubbing. Therefore, the matter was referred to a third Member. The third Member (Taxation) took up the matter and dealt with the issue. He then, after hearing and discussing the entire matter which was referred to him, held "In view of these discussions, I most humbly support the order of the Hon'ble Member and most respectfully beg to differ from the order of the Hon'ble Vice-President on the two points referred to me for consideration." 2. In the present ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....following the decision of this Court in State by Public Prosecutor v:. Arumugham and 12 others [1989 L.W. (Criminal) 519], the decision of a Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in AIR 1978 Madhya Pradesh 10 (Firm Ladhuram v. K.U.M.Samiti) and the decision of Lahore High Court in AIR (30) 1943 Lahore 84 (Royal Calcutta Turf Club v. Lala Kishan Chand), held in Paragraphs 12 and 13 as follows: "12. In the present case, the Member and the Vice-President who differed with each other have signed the order on 16-5-1997. Then, the third Member, the Honourable Member (Taxation) took up the matter and dealt with the issue. He then, after hearing and discussing the entire matter which was referred to him, held "In view of these discussions, I m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red had to be heard only by a third Member, who had heard it and the majority opinion was pronounced on the basis of how the point was decided by the majority. It is not necessary for the matter to be heard again by another Bench merely because the two Members who had originally differed are no longer available for constituting the two Member Bench. This is in accordance with the judgment of the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court which holds, "if in the interval a change has occurred in the constitution of the Division Bench in question, it would be necessary for the Honourable the Chief Justice to constitute another Division Bench as the successor of the referring Bench." The successor Bench will pronounce the final judgment according ....