Court on its own Motion ( Bom) (HC ) www.itat online .org.
Constitution of India
362 : Corona Virus Lockdown Crisis – Extension of interim orders – Expiring before 30 -04 -2020 – Shall continue to operate till then – Interim orders which are not granted for limited duration are to operate till further orders shall remain unaffected by this order .[ Art . 226, 227 ]
Administrator, Jammu Municipality & Anr. v. Swarn Theatre and Ors. MANU/SCOR/04882/2020 (SC); www.itatonline.org
Appeal – Supreme Court -Condonation of delay- The special leave petition has been filed after a delay of 387 days with further delay of 302 days in refiling- This is one more case which we have defined as “Certificate Cases” – Administration directed to hold an inquiry into the aspect as to who is responsible for such inordinate delay and take suitable action against the officers concerned [ .Limitation Act ,1963, S.5 ]
Wholesale Trading Services (P.) Ltd. v. ICAI (2019) 267 Taxman 245 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 22 : Professional or other misconduct–Decision of Director discipline of ICAI to not to entertain complaint and decision of board of discipline of ICAI to concur with director discipline’s opinion could not be faulted-Petition was dismissed with cost of Rs. 1 lakh was directed to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee with in a period of two weeks.
University of Delhi v. UOI (SC), www.itatonline.org
Limitation Act , 1963 .
S.5 : Extension of prescribed in certain cases – Condonation of delay- 916 days- A liberal approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay – The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of the party , namely the Government or the pubic bodies – Condonation of delay is not automatic- No proper explanation was filed for condonation of delay – Condonation of delay was dismissed . [Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXI of the Code Art. 226 ]
Kanta Sharma v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (2018) 259 Taxman 376 (Delhi)( HC)
Chartered Accountants Act, 1949,
S.10: Failure to append her signatures at places earmarked therefor in nomination form, petitioner’s nomination was rightly rejected by ICAI for non-compliance of statutory rules 9, 10 and 11 of Chartered Accountants (Election to Council) Rules, 2006 and petitioner could not contest election- Petition is dismissed .[ Rules, 9, 10, 11]
Anand Agarwal v. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar(Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.org
Advocate Act , 1961
S.7:Code of ethics – Dishonest practice – For misrepresentations before the Court, which should under any and all circumstances be dealt with the iron hand of the judiciary with zero tolerance for such blatantly unethical and mala-fide behaviour- Exemplary cost of Rs 10 lakh was to be paid to plaintiffs [ Contempt Courts Act , 1971 ]