Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Attorney(S)
  • P.S. Patwalia, Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya, Amarendra Sharan and Dushyant A. Dave, Senior Advocates [Ms Aishwarya Bhati, Kabir Shankar Bose, Nachiketa Joshi (Advocate-on-Record), Ms Sucheta Joshi, Chetan Uppal, Ujjaval Kumar, Subhasish Bhowmick (Advocate-on-Record), Shamim Ahmed, Ms Arka, Goldy Goyal, V. Giri, Suhaan Mukerji, Harsh Hiroo Gursahani, Ms Astha Sharma, Vishal Prasad, Amit Verma (for M/s PLR Chambers & Co.) (Advocate-on-Record), Rohit Bhat and Rajat Nair (for B.V. Balaram Das) (Advocate-on-Record), Advocates] for the appearing parties.
Judges
  • R.K. Agrawal
  • Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Acts
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Attorney(S)
  • P.S. Patwalia, Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya, Amarendra Sharan and Dushyant A. Dave, Senior Advocates [Ms Aishwarya Bhati, Kabir Shankar Bose, Nachiketa Joshi (Advocate-on-Record), Ms Sucheta Joshi, Chetan Uppal, Ujjaval Kumar, Subhasish Bhowmick (Advocate-on-Record), Shamim Ahmed, Ms Arka, Goldy Goyal, V. Giri, Suhaan Mukerji, Harsh Hiroo Gursahani, Ms Astha Sharma, Vishal Prasad, Amit Verma (for M/s PLR Chambers & Co.) (Advocate-on-Record), Rohit Bhat and Rajat Nair (for B.V. Balaram Das) (Advocate-on-Record), Advocates] for the appearing parties.
Judges
  • R.K. Agrawal
  • Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Acts
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner and another individual had earlier filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging an order dated 10-04-2018 issued by the State Election Commission. The High Court, by an interim order reported as 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 600, stayed the operation of that Commission order. While the High Court matter remained pending, the present Miscellaneous Application (MA No. 1030 of 2018 in WP (C) No. 302 of 2018) came before the Supreme Court. During the Supreme Court hearing, the petitioner’s Senior Counsel produced a newspaper clipping from The Telegraph dated 11-04-2018, purportedly describing how the challenged order had been “recalled” on 10-04-2018. The Supreme Court ultimately declined to entertain the application on merits and instead directed the parties to pursue their remedies before the Calcutta High Court. A related Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 13741 of 2018 was disposed of on the same terms.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
2018 SCC OnLine Cal 600 Interim stay granted by the Calcutta High Court against the State Election Commission’s order dated 10-04-2018. The Supreme Court noted that this interim order was already in place, and therefore directed the parties to continue litigating before the Calcutta High Court.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court observed that the substantive dispute—validity of the State Election Commission’s order dated 10-04-2018—was already seized of by the Calcutta High Court, which had granted an interim stay. In the interests of judicial propriety and to avoid parallel proceedings, the Court granted liberty to all parties to raise every available contention before the High Court. It further directed that the High Court decide the matter “expeditiously in accordance with law.” The Court therefore found no reason to entertain the miscellaneous application or the related writ petition on the merits.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The Supreme Court disposed of MA No. 1030 of 2018 in WP (C) No. 302 of 2018—and, by extension, Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 13741 of 2018—granting liberty to approach the Calcutta High Court. The immediate consequence is that the High Court will now adjudicate the dispute on priority. No new legal precedent was established by this order; its practical effect is limited to directing the forum for further proceedings.

Show full summary ...

    Bharatiya Janata Party, West Bengal v. State Of West Bengal And Others

    Judgment

    MA No. 1030 of 2018 in WP (C) No. 302 of 2018

    1. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the parties.

    2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and one more person have approached the Calcutta High Court by filing writ petition challenging the order dated 10-4-2018 passed by the State Election Commission and an interim order 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 600 has already been passed staying the operation of the said order. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/applicant placed before us a newspaper clipping dated 11-4-2018 published in The Telegraph in which certain news has been published regarding the manner in which the order has been recalled on 10-4-2018.

    3. As the matter is pending consideration before the Calcutta High Court, liberty is granted to the parties to approach the Calcutta High Court to raise all such pleas which are available to them.

    4. The learned Senior Counsel submits that his client(s) shall approach the High Court tomorrow. Liberty is granted to do so. The Calcutta High Court shall decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law. Disposed of in the above terms.

    Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 13741 of 2018

    5. In view of the disposal of MA No. 1030 of 2018 in WP (C) No. 302 of 2018, this writ petition also stands disposed of in the same terms.

    Court Masters

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Bharatiya Janata Party, West Bengal v. State Of West Bengal And Others
    (Apr 11, 2018)