TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1031
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e present Petitioner)and also Ms. Vyas, the learned AGP. 2. By this Review Petition, a Review is sought of the Judgement and Order dated 14th February, 2024, whereby we had disposed of the Petition filed by Respondent No. 6/ Original Petitioner, which primarily pertained to the relief, as prayed for in regard to the Registration of the Sale Certificate issued in favour of Respondent No. 6 in respect of the property purchased by Respondent No. 6 in an auction held by Respondent No. 4-State Bank of India under the SARFAESI Act. 3. There were dues of the Sales Tax Department, and such dues were not cleared by the borrower. The concerned Sub-Registrar was not permitting the Writ Petitioner to register the sale certificate. It is for such reas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is represented by Mr. Kode, being the original owners of the property. In consequence thereto, the mutation entry no. 751 itself stands deleted, which indicated the charge of the Sales Tax Department. As the mutation entry in regard to the charge of the Sales Tax Department has now been deleted, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that there is no impediment/ hurdle for the Sub-Registrar of Assurance to register the Sale Certificate in question. 9:-As the only embargo which was informed to the petitioner on 29 November, 2023 has now been removed and it no more exists, Ms. Vyas, learned Addl. G. P. and Mr. Kankal, learned AGP on behalf of respondent no. 1 to 3 in not disputing such position, have fairly stated that there would not be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to give effect to the Sales Certificate also the Sales Certificate today is valid and subsisting. If that be so, then certainly, the benefit of Sales Certificate needs to enure to the petitioner by availing its registration. Also as now the sales tax due have also been paid, the only impediment which was informed to the petitioner in not registering the Sales Certificate stands removed." 5. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present Review Petition, which is not filed through the Advocate who had earlier represented/ appeared for the Review Petitioner (Original Respondent No. 6) is in regard to what has been stated in paragraph 8 of the Judgement under Review, which we have noted herein above. The contention is quiet peculiar inasmu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to file and also argue matters in Review proceedings, without obtaining the consent of the Advocate who had appeared at the original stage. The Supreme Court in such decision, has observed as under:- "It is a sad spectacle that new practice unbecoming of worthy and conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr. Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner-respondent when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on April 24, 1996. Yet another advocate, Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, has now been engaged to file the present application styled as "application for clarification", on the specious ....