'Get friendly with top tax-payers'
New Delhi, Aug. 28:
In an effort at an image makeover, Finance Minister P Chidambaram has asked the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) to focus on the top 100 tax payers and get friendlier with them. At the same time, he hoped that the indirect tax collections target of over Rs 5 lakh crore will be met.
After a meeting with top CBEC officials, he said the tax department has to be firm with evaders for whom, he said, "non-compliance is a business."
The Minister said, "The top 100 (taxpayers) each in customs, excise and service tax contribute 95 per cent of total tax collection."
The tax administration must be "friendly" with the business community, he said. The Government has fixed a target of Rs 5.05 lakh crore for indirect tax collections.
There is fear that the slowdown in the manufacturing sector may affect collections. But Chidambaram claimed that Chief Commissioners have assured him the target would be met.
 | Condition of section 68 treated to be fulfilled by furnishing necessary materials with supporting evidence |
| Posted on 28 August 2012 by Apurba Ghosh | |
CourtINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BriefFacts indicate that Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,98,64,646/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act against which assessee preferred appeal in which action of he Assessing Officer in regard to addition u/s 68 of the Act was challenged and Ld.AR of the assessee submitted before first appellate authority that during the year under consideration, the assessee received interest free unsecured loans, from its directors as under: Sh. Gurinder Singh Dhillon - Rs.50,00,000 Smt. Shabnam Dhillon - Rs.1,00,000 The Assessing Officer, on perusal of the audited annual accounts for the year ended 31.03.2008, observed that the following amounts of the loans extended by the directors of the assessee company were outstanding as on that date: Sh. Gurinder Singh Dhillon - Rs.1,08,66,347/- Smt. Shabnam Dhillon - Rs.89,98,299/- The Assessing Officer issued summons to the above directors under section 131of the Act. In response to the same, Shri Gurinder Singh Dhillon as well as Smt. Shabnam Dhillon, vide letter dated 19.10.2010, submitted the following details/documents before the Assessing Officer. - Confirmation regarding granting of unsecured loan:- Copies of the ledger account of the assessee company as appearing in their books of account. CitationACIT, Circle 4(1), New Delhi. (Appellant) Vs. Luminous Hodings Pvt. Ltd., 115, Yashwant Place, Chankyapuri, New Delhi. (PAN/GIR No.AAACL8754B) (Respondent) Judgement IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `D': NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4850/Del /2011 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) ACIT, Circle 4(1), New Delhi. (Appellant) Vs. Luminous Hodings Pvt. Ltd., 115, Yashwant Place, Chankyapuri, New Delhi. (PAN/GIR No.AAACL8754B) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Ajay Vohra, Adv., Revenue by: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, DR ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. This appeal of the department is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)- VII, New Delhi, dated 29.08.2011, relevant to assessment year 2008-09, whereby deletion of addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, despite the fact that the assessee could not prove creditworthiness of the persons extending such a huge interest free loans to it, has been challenged. 2. Facts indicate that Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,98,64,646/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act against which assessee preferred appeal in which action of he Assessing Officer in regard to addition u/s 68 of the Act was challenged and Ld.AR of the assessee submitted before first appellate authority that during the year under consideration, the assessee received interest free unsecured loans, from its directors as under: 1. Sh. Gurinder Singh Dhillon - Rs.50,00,000 2. Smt. Shabnam Dhillon - Rs.1,00,000 3. The Assessing Officer, on perusal of the audited annual accounts for the year ended 31.03.2008, observed that the following amounts of the loans extended by the directors of the assessee company were outstanding as on that date: 1. Sh. Gurinder Singh Dhillon - Rs.1,08,66,347/- 2. Smt. Shabnam Dhillon - Rs.89,98,299/- 4. The Assessing Officer issued summons to the above directors under section 131of the Act. In response to the same, Shri Gurinder Singh Dhillon as well as Smt. Shabnam Dhillon, vide letter dated 19.10.2010, submitted the following details/documents before the Assessing Officer. - Confirmation regarding granting of unsecured loan:- Copies of the ledger account of the assessee company as appearing in their books of account. - Copies of their income tax returns for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09; and - Copies of their attested annual accounts for the year ending 31.03.2007 and 31.03.2008. 5. The Assessing Officer, however, being dissatisfied with the responses filed, added the outstanding balance payable to the aforesaid parties aggregating to Rs.1,98,64,646/- as on 31.03.2008 as the assessee's undisclosed income under section 68 of the Act, holding that the lenders of the above loans, i.e. the directors, did not have the capacity to advance loans of such magnitude and also the loan transactions were non-genuine. 6. Ld.AR of the assessee submitted before first appellate authority that during the year under consideration, the assessee received interest free unsecured loans from its directors as under: - Shri Gurinder Singh Dhillon - Rs.50,00,000/- - Smt. Shabnam Dhillon - Rs.1,00,000/- 7. Ld.AR of the assessee further submitted before first appellate authority that it is settled law that in terms of provisions of section 68 of the Act, the primary onus to frame the nature and source of the amount, so found to be credited is on the assessee. However, once reasonable explanation is furnished by the assessee, the onus shifts to the Revenue and number of decisions were cited in first appeal proceedings and attention was invited to the copy of the bank account of Shri G.S. Dhillon for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 as contained at pages 60-61 of the paper book filed in appeal and it was contended that Rs.50,00,000/- was advanced to the assessee on 18.10.2007 on which date Shri G.S. Dhillon was having balance of Rs.51,22,278.06, which was sufficient enough to advance the loan of Rs.50,00,000/- to the assessee during the year under consideration. Similarly, copy of bank account statement of Smt. Shabnam Dhillon for the same period, revealed that Rs.1,00,000/- was advanced to the assessee on 27.10.2007 on which date Smt. Shabnam Dhillon was having balance of Rs.2,07,323.81 which was sufficient enough to advance the loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the assessee during the year under consideration. Attention of CIT(A) was further invited to the attested annual accounts of two directors which revealed that amounts received as loans by the assessee is duly reflected in the respective balance sheets filed. Since assessee has established the source of loan inasmuch as the documentary evidence placed on record which clearly established that loan was received from the directors of the assessee company and evidence in the form of bank account statement and attested balance-sheets of the creditors have also been placed on record to establish the creditworthiness of the creditors and since loans were advanced by such creditors out of the unsecured loans which further goes to substantiate the fact that the creditors were having sufficient funds at their disposal for granting such loan to the assessee and by placing further reliance on Calcutta & Delhi High Courts decisions, it was pleaded to delete the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer. 8. Ld.CIT(A) while considering and accepting the appeal of the assessee has concluded to delete the impugned addition as per para.3.3 of his order which reads as under: "Under the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, it is held that the appellant had discharged its burden of proof u/s 68 of the Act since the appellant has proved not only the identity of the creditor but have also proved the creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of transaction by showing the bank statements. Even if human probabilities are to be considered as propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases relied by Assessing Officer, still the evidence on record should suggest so as to draw adverse inference. It is not subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer but based on objective analysis of evidence filed and after examining it, one can come to the conclusion whether the transaction was probable or not. Therefore, merely alleging will not assist the case of the Assessing Officer. Thus, in absence of any contrary evidence than that produced by assessee, the addition u/s 68 is not justified. Accordingly, it is held that the addition of Rs.1,98,64,646/- on account of unsecured loans cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same is directed to be deleted." 9. Aggrieved by this order of the CIT(A), department has come up in appeal and while relying upon the order of the Assessing Officer, it was pleaded for reversal of the order of the CIT(A) and restoring that of the Assessing Officer. 10. Ld.Counsel for the assessee pleaded that all necessary evidence/documents in support of loans raised by the assessee have been duly filed which not only prove the genuineness but also creditworthiness of the transactions when these two persons are directors in the assessee company. By drawing our attention to various papers filed in the paper book to substantiate its claim of the creditors being genuine, creditworthiness have been established. The CIT(A) has already concluded to delete the impugned addition whose action may be confirmed. It was thus pleaded for confirmation of the impugned order. 11. We have heard both the sides, considered the material on record and find that since onus lay on the assessee has duly been discharged in this case by furnishing necessary material and evidence before the authorities below which is supported by all documentary evidence in the shape of bank statements and balance sheets etc. whose copies have been filed in the paper book before us and CIT(A) while considering all the aspects of the case is found to come to a just and appropriate conclusion to delete the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer. Neither any contrary material has been placed on record by the department nor any infirmity of law has been pointed out or noticed by this bench in the order of Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, keeping in view the entirely of facts, circumstances and material on record, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere in the order passed by the CIT(A) which is confirmed and this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 12. As a result, appeal of the department gets dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 01.08.2012. Sd/- Sd/- (K.D. RANJAN) (U.B.S. BEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: Aug. 08, 2012 SKB Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-VII, New Delhi. 5. CIT(ITAT) Deputy Registrar, ITAT |
| | Cheque payment is enough to prove payment and deduction for staff welfare si allowed only if made by assessee |
| Posted on 28 August 2012 by Apurba Ghosh | |
CourtINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BriefThe Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 47,59,846/- being payment made to the sub-contractors on the ground that identification of these sub-contractors are not proved without properly appreciating the facts of the case and law applicable thereto. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs, 29,710/- being difference as per income credited in Profit & Loss Account and income shown in TDS certificates without properly appreciating the facts of the case and law applicable thereto. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance relating to telephone expenses, rent, rate and taxes on the ground that expenditures are personal expenses without properly appreciating the facts of the case and law applicable thereto. CitationMurari Rajdhar Packers (P) Ltd., C/o. SARA & Associates, Chartered accountants, 1s t Floor, Peekay Mansion, 470 JSS Road, Chira Bazar, MUMBAI – 400 002 PAN No. AADCM 5114 H (Appellant) Vs. ACIT, Circle-2 THANE. (Respondent) Judgement IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES "B" MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 233/M/09 Assessment Year 2004-05 ITA No. 6641/M/08 Assessment Year 2005-06 Murari Rajdhar Packers (P) Ltd., C/o. SARA & Associates, Chartered accountants, 1s t Floor, Peekay Mansion, 470 JSS Road, Chira Bazar, MUMBAI – 400 002 PAN No. AADCM 5114 H (Appellant) Vs. ACIT, Circle-2 THANE. (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Shivaram & Shri Rajesh Agarwal Revenue by: Shri P. C. Maurya Date of hearing: 19-06-2012 Date of pronouncement: 01-08-2012 ORDER PER RAJENDRA, A.M. Following Grounds of Appeal were filed by the assessee-company against the orders dated 26-11-2007 & 11-08-2008 respectively of the CIT (A)-II, Thane for the AY 2004-05 and 2005-06. ITA 233/M/2009 - AY 2004-05 1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance of payment made to subcontractor of Rs. 35,92,311/- on the ground that identity of these sub-contractors were not proved without properly appreciating the facts of the case and law applicable thereto. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,03,032/- of staff welfare and Rs. 12600/- of rent, rate and taxes without properly appreciating the facts of the case and law applicable thereto. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not disposing off grounds of appeal under which disallowance of following expenses has been challenged. a .Telephone expenses -Rs.18,337/- b. Travelling expenses -Rs.16,190/- c. Loading and Unloading -Rs.1,90,139/- d. Freight & Transportation -Rs.1,43,090/- Total Rs. 3,67,756/- 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the following disallowance without properly appreciating fact of the case and law applicable thereto. a. Telephone expenses -Rs.18,337/- b. Travelling expenses -Rs.16,190/- c. Loading and Unloading -Rs.1,90,139/- d. Freight & Transportation -Rs.1,43,090/- Total Rs. 3,67,756/- 5. The appellant prays that the various disallowance confirmed be deleted. 6. The appellant craves your honour's leave to add, alter or amend any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or before. ITA 6641/08 – AY 2005-06 1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 47,59,846/- being payment made to the sub-contractors on the ground that identification of these sub-contractors are not proved without properly appreciating the facts of the case and law applicable thereto. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs, 29,710/- being difference as per income credited in Profit & Loss Account and income shown in TDS certificates without properly appreciating the facts of the case and law applicable thereto. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance relating to telephone expenses, rent, rate and taxes on the ground that expenditures are personal expenses without properly appreciating the facts of the case and law applicable thereto. 4. The appellant prays that the disallowance made be deleted. 5. The appellant craves your honour's leave to add,, alter or amend any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or before. 2. The assessee company, a labour contractor, engaged in the business of job on contract basis for various textile activities, filed its return of income on 29.10.2004, declaring total income of Rs. 96,560/-. Assessing officer (AO) completed assessment and 26-12-2006 determining total income of at Rs.50.79 lakhs. During the year in question the assessee company had taken contract for checking and packing of fabrics from Donear Industries Ltd. In turn, the assessee had engaged various subcontractors to complete the job. During the assessment proceedings the AO had made certain disallowances that can be divided into two categories- i) Disallowances of sub contract amount in Rs. 35.92 lakhs ii) Disallowanceof other expenses of Rs. 13.9 lakhs. 3. First Ground of Appeal for the AY.2004-05 before us is about disallowance of payment made to the subcontractors. During the course of assessment AO had issued letters/summons to various sub-contractors calling for certain information. A few of the letters came back with noting 'Person not found'. AO made enquiries through his Inspector about the subcontractors. On the basis of available material AO held that two labour contractors namely M/s. Sanjay Packaging and M/s. Vandana Packaging were not genuine. He made disallowance amounting to Rs. 35.92 Lakhs on account of payment to sub-contractors. Assessee filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). After considering the submissions made by the Authorised Representative (AR) and the assessment order, FAA upheld the disallowance made on account of payments made to the subcontractors. FAA referred to the statements of Chandrakant Mishra, proprietor of Vandana packaging and Sanjay Mishra proprietor of Sanjay packaging. FAA was of the opinion that there were several contradictions in the stand taken by the assessee. He also held that payments made to subcontractors were not genuine. 4. Before us, AR submitted that the contractors had admitted rendering of services to the assessee that copies of the returns of income filed by the subcontractors were furnished before the AO, that both the contractors were assessed to tax, that payments were made by A/c Payee cheques to the sub-contractors, that TDS was deducted by the assessee before making payments, that sub-contractors had confirmed receipts of payment, that copies of bank statements of sub-contractors were also furnished during assessment proceedings, that disallowance was made on mere presumptions only. AR relied upon the case of HI Lux automotives ((P) (183 Taxmann 260). He stated that there was arithmetical mistake in the figure mentioned by the AO with regard to the disallowance made by the AO, that correct figure was 34.97 lakhs. He further submitted that in subsequent Assessment Year, same issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the CIT(A) and the ITAT. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that supervisor of the assessee company did not mention the names of the two sub-contractors i.e., Vandana Packagings and Sanjay Packagings that bank accounts of contractors were at Nariman Point where as payments were made at Umargaon (Guj), that genuineness of sub-contractors was not established. 4.1 We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available. We find that similar disallowance made by the AO were deleted by the FAA, while deciding the appeal filed by the appellant company for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 'J' Bench of ITAT Mumbai (ITA 6393/Mum/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 dt. 20-12-2011) had dealt the issue under consideration and had dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The basic facts for rejecting the appeal of Revenue were as under: i) Payments made by the assessee to the sub-contractor were through A/c Payee cheques; ii) Cheques received by the sub-contractor were reflecting in his bank a/c; iii) TDS was deducted by the assessee; iv) Services were rendered by the sub-contractor; v) Receipt of payment by sub-contractor was not in dispute; 5. If the above facts are compared with the case under consideration, it becomes clear that they are identical. Except for the names and amounts involved, facts are same. In the appeal decided by the Tribunal, sub-contractor had not filed return of income, whereas in the matter under consideration, returns were filed by the persons receiving the payments. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the FAA cannot be endorsed. Assessee had discharged the burden cast on him about genuineness of transaction. In these circumstances, Ground No.1 is decided in favour of the assessee. 6. With reference to Ground Nos. 2,3 and 4 AR submitted that the same may be decided on merits. We find that the FAA has sustained disallowance of Rs. 2.03 Lakhs on account of 'Staff' Welfare Expenditure'. From his order, it is clear that the assessee had claimed to have paid an amount of Rs. 2,55,353/- to shri Purushottam Upadhyaya. FAA found that payment to Shri Upadhyaya was made by the subcontractors and not by the assessee. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that decision of the FAA does not need any interference. Similarly, we find that assessee had not produced any evidence before AO/FAA with regard to payment made by the assessee-company to its sister concern. So, the disallowance by the AO and upheld by the FAA on account of rent needs to be endorsed. Thus, Ground No.2 is decided against the assessee. 7. Ground No.3 is about not deciding the Grounds of Appeal by the FAA with regard to disallowance made by the AO on account of Telephone Expenses of (Rs. 18,337/-), Travelling expenses (Rs. 16,190/-), loading and un-loading expenses (Rs. 1,90,139/-) and freight and transportation expenses (Rs. 1,43,090/-). We find that assessee had specifically raised the above ground of appeal before the FAA. In the Form No.35 as well as in the Statement of facts filed before the FAA, there is a mention about above mentioned four disallowances. We find that said ground has not been adjudicated upon by the FAA. Matter is restored back to FAA for the limited purpose of deciding Ground No.3 filed before us. He should decide the issue after hearing the assessee. Ground No.3 is partly allowed in favour of the assessee. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2004-05 stands allowed in part. ITA No. 6641/M/08 8. In the appeal for the Assessment Year 2005-06, Ground No.1 is about disallowance of payment made to three sub-contractors, including the two to whom payments were made by the assessee in the last Assessment Year also. As the facts are same as of Assessment Year 2004-05, we decided Ground No.1 in favour of the Assessee. 9. Ground No.2 is about addition of Rs. 29,710/- being difference as per income credited in P&L A/c and income shown in TDS Certificate. During the AO proceeding, AO noticed that Deonar Industries had paid/credited Rs. 1,36,64,975/- to the account of the assessee, where as assessee had returned income of Rs. 1,36,35,265/-. When inquired about the difference, assessee submitted that same was on account of discounts and rebates. AO rejected claim made by the AO and FAA upheld the same. Before us, AR submitted that issue may be decided on merits. We find that no evidence of rebate or discounts were produced by the assessee before any of the authorities. Hence, disallowance upheld by the FAA has to be endorsed. Ground No.2 is decided against the assessee. 10. Ground No.3 is about disallowance made on account of telephone expenses (15% of the total expenditure i.e., Rs. 5752/- and expenses incurred on account of rent, rates and taxes (Rs. 12,562/-). We find that FAA upheld the addition of telephone expenditure because of non-maintenance of call register. Expenditure under the head Rent, Rates and Taxes was disallowed/upheld by the AO/FAA, as assessee had not furnished any agreement in this regard. AR submitted that issue under consideration may be decided on material available. DR supported order of the FAA. We are of the opinion that order of the FAA does not need any inference. Disallowance of rent etc., has been upheld by us for the AY 2004-05 also. Following has been the same, we endorse the decision of the FAA. Similarly, action of the FAA about telephone expenses is also justified. As a result, Ground No.3 is dismissed. Appeal filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2005-06 stands Partly Allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 1st August, 2012. Sd/- Sd/- (B.R. MITTAL) (RAJENDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Date 1st August, 2012 TNMM Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. The concerned CIT (A) 4. The concerned CIT 5. DR "B" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File (True copy) By Order Asst. Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai |
| | In matters of administration of the internal affairs of a University, the courts should be most reluctant to interfere |
| Posted on 28 August 2012 by Apurba Ghosh | |
CourtSupreme Court of India BriefIt is alleged that on 02.02.2010 Craig Mcleod grossly misbehaved on campus with two Professors of the University. As a result of the incident, a First Information Report was lodged with the police and the Proctorial Board of the University took an emergent decision to expel him from the University for violating the code of conduct and for beating and threatening a teacher. Pending a final decision on the allegations against him, Craig Mcleod was suspended from attending his classes, stopped from availing facilities of the University and restrained from entering the University premises by an order dated 02.02.2010. CitationUNIVERSITY …..Appellant Versus CRAIG MCLEOD …..Respondent Judgement REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5889 OF 2012 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL ) NO . 32358 OF 2010 ) VICE CHANCELLOR, GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY …..Appellant Versus CRAIG MCLEOD …..Respondent J U D G M E N T Madan B . Lokur, J . 1. Leave granted. 2. The Vice Chancellor, Guru Ghasidas University is aggrieved by an interim order dated 09.08.2010 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in W.P.(C) No. 694 of 2010 filed by Craig Mcleod. 3. The subject matter of the impugned interim order, is three directions given by the University on 02.02.2010. These three directions are: (1) suspending Craig Mcleod from attending classes in the University of which he is a student, (2) stopping him from availing the facilities of the University till final orders are passed in respect of his alleged gross misbehavior, and (3) restraining from entering the University premises. 4. All three directions were stayed by the High Court by the impugned interim order till the disposal of the Writ Petition. The interim stay was subject to the condition that Craig Mcleod gives an undertaking, inter alia, of good behaviour. The impugned interim order also directed the University not to pass a final order in respect of the alleged gross misbehavior of Craig Mcleod. 5. In our opinion the impugned interim order is not sustainable and while passing final orders, we have taken subsequent developments into consideration. The facts: 6. It is alleged that on 02.02.2010 Craig Mcleod grossly misbehaved on campus with two Professors of the University. As a result of the incident, a First Information Report was lodged with the police and the Proctorial Board of the University took an emergent decision to expel him from the University for violating the code of conduct and for beating and threatening a teacher. Pending a final decision on the allegations against him, Craig Mcleod was suspended from attending his classes, stopped from availing facilities of the University and restrained from entering the University premises by an order dated 02.02.2010. Proceedings in the High Court: 7. Feeling aggrieved, Craig Mcleod challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 694 of 2010 in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. On 17.02.2010 notice was issued in the Writ Petition and in the interim, the passing of an order of rustication was stayed. This interim order was continued for a couple of months. 8. On 17.06.2010, the High Court granted liberty to the University to take a final decision in the matter of the alleged gross misbehaviour of Craig Mcleod within a week. In other words, the interim order was not extended. 9. Soon thereafter, some developments appear to have taken place but they are not clear from the record before us. Be that as it may, on 22.07.2010 the High Court recorded that Craig Mcleod had filed an affidavit dated 21.07.2010 in the High Court tendering an unconditional apology to the teacher concerned for the incident, which he stated was unintentional. The order passed by the High Court also recorded that Craig Mcleod stated that he would go to the University on 26.07.2010 and personally tender an apology to the concerned teachers. The case was then adjourned to 06.08.2010. 10. When the matter was taken up on 06.08.2010, the High Court was informed by the University and the concerned Professors that Craig Mcleod did come to the University to tender an apology but he was accompanied by several persons. It appears that an apology was not tendered by him and in any event the apology, if tendered, was not sincere in view of the above situation. This was, of course, contested by Craig Mcleod. 11. Based, however, on the affidavit of apology dated 21.07.2010, the impugned interim order dated 09.08.2010 came to be passed by the High Court. Proceedings in this Court and pendent lite developments: 12. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned interim order dated 09.08.2010 the University preferred a Petition for Special Leave to appeal (now a Civil Appeal). On 29.11.2010, this Court passed the following order : "Issue Notice. Interim stay of the impugned order of the High Court to the extent it stays the passing of the final order in the disciplinary enquiry against the respondent. Consequently, the Enquiry Authority may submit his report, subject to final decision." 13. When we took up the matter for final disposal, learned counsel for the parties brought to our notice certain developments that had taken place during the pendency of this appeal. Firstly, on 07.01.2011 an office order was passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University rusticating Craig Mcleod from the University for a period of 5 years. It was also ordered that he was not entitled to get admission in any course in the University or any affiliated college of University during this period of 5 years. The operative portion of the order passed by the Vice Chancellor reads as follows:- "The Shri Craig Mcleod S/o Shri Rodney Mcleod, a student of B.E. (Computer Science and Engineering) is hereby rusticated from the University for a period of 5 years w.e.f. today and further he will not be entitled to get admission in any course in the University or any affiliated college of the University during this period of 5 years." 14. Thereafter, Craig Mcleod challenged the order dated 07.01.2011 by filing W.P.(C) No. 890 of 2012 in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. This Writ Petition came up for hearing on 10.05.2012 when it was withdrawn by him with liberty to move an appropriate application in this Court since this appeal was still pending. The order passed by the High Court on 10.05.2010 reads as follows:- "In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29/11/2010 in SLP(C) No. 32358/2010 arising out of an interim order passed by this court on 09/08/2010 in W.P. (C) No. 694/2010, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that "the Enquiry Authority may submit his report, subject to final decision", learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to move appropriate application before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid." 15. We may note that despite liberty having been granted to him, Craig Mcleod has not filed any application in this Court. We have, however, heard learned counsel for the parties. Discussion: 16. It is only in an atypical case that this Court entertains a petition against a discretionary interim order passed by the High Court (Southern Petrochemical Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Madras Refineries Ltd., (1998) 9 SCC 209, Maharashtra SEB v. Vaman, (1999) 3 SCC 132, and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110) where, for example, the repercussions are grave or the legal basis for passing the interim order are obscure (Union of India v. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co.Ltd., (1978) 4 SCC 295); or there is a miscarriage of justice (Joginder Nath Gupta v. Satish Chander Gupta, (1983) 2 SCC 325); or it is imperative that this Court exercises its corrective jurisdiction (Kishor Kirtilal Mehta and Ors. v. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, (2007) 10 SCC 21). 17. There is, therefore, a self-imposed limited discretion for interference available to this Court, and it would, generally, be more appropriate for an aggrieved litigant to approach the High Court for rectifying any error that may have been committed in passing (or declining to pass) an interim order. Of course, in an emergent and appropriate situation it is always open to a litigant to approach this Court in its remedial jurisdiction. 18. Insofar as the present case is concerned, Craig Mcleod was alleged to have assaulted a professor on campus. This by itself is a rather serious allegation. While appreciating this, the High Court had, on 7.6.2010, permitted the University to take a final decision in respect of the alleged gross misbehaviour of Craig Mcleod. About two months later, the High Court completely changed its view apparently because in the meantime Craig Mcleod had tendered an apology to the High Court (which was not necessary) and then tendered or offered to tender an apology to the concerned Professor, which he did not accept since it was not sincere. 19. The turn of events, given the lapse of time, did not form a legal basis for interdicting completion of the inquiry against Craig Mcleod. While the High Court may have intended to bring a quietus to the entire episode, it should have kept in mind that maintenance of discipline in the University is equally important for a conducive academic environment and that the larger interests of the academic community are more central than the individual interests of a student. In Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya and Another v. Rajkishore Tripathi (Dr.), (1977) 1 SCC 279 it was observed that in matters of discipline or administration of the internal affairs of a University, the courts should be most reluctant to interfere. 20. It is under these circumstances that we have entertained this appeal against an interim order. Conclusion: 21. Now, several significant developments have taken place overtaking the 'cause of action' for approaching this Court, particularly the passing of the office order dated 07.01.2011 by Vice Chancellor of the University. In our opinion, it is not necessary or even appropriate at this stage to judge the validity of the office order dated 07.01.2011. We may only mention that learned counsel for Craig Mcleod submitted that the order dated 07.01.2011 is in violation of the order passed by this Court on 29.11.2010. 22. Therefore, without going into the larger issues raised before us, we grant liberty to Craig Mcleod to revive W.P.(C) No. 890 of 2012 filed (and subsequently withdrawn) by him in the High Court challenging the office order dated 07.01.2011 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University. We expect the High Court to permit revival of the Writ Petition and decide it expeditiously since it is stated that Craig Mcleod has already lost two years of his education as result of this litigation. 23. Under the circumstances, the impugned interim order is set aside and this appeal is accordingly disposed of. ….…….……………………..J. (A.K. Patnaik) ….…….……………………..J. (Madan B. Lokur) |
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment