Case LawHigh Court › Cp/16/2020 Of Atmaram K. Patil v. Mr. P....

Cp/16/2020 Of Atmaram K. Patil v. Mr. P. Shridharan The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nagpur

High Court 06 Jan 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
Cp/16/2020 Of Atmaram K. Patil v. Mr. P. Shridharan The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nagpur
Date of order
06 Jan 2021
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Cp/16/2020 Of Atmaram K. Patil v. Mr. P. Shridharan The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nagpur, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.16 OF 2020 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1784 OF 2006 (D) Shri Atmaram K. Patil, Nagpur ...VERSUS… Mr. P. Shridharan, The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur and others ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court'and Registrar's orders. s orders of directions Court's or Judge's order Ms. N. N. Singhvi, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. N. G. Chaubey, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM: A. S. CHANDURKAR AND N. B. SURYAWANSHI, JJ. DATED : 6th January, 2021. 1.The respondents were directed to accordbenefit of stepping up by way of grant of special pay ofRs.35/- to the petitioner notionally from the month ofJune-1984 so as to remove the anomaly of lesser paythan his junior Shri. P. S. Warade. The respondents werefurther directed to notionally re-fix the pay of thepetitioner accordingly and grant arrears from01.12.1994 i.e. from the date of office memorandum.Willful disobedience of this order is claimed in thepresent contempt petition. 2.The respondents have filed their reply andplaced on record the revised order of pay fixation of the petitioner in compliance of the order passed in writpetition no.1784 of 2006. It appears that therespondents have complied with the directions given inthe writ petition by passing the revised order dated04.09.2019, whereby the stepping up by way of grant ofspecial pay of Rs.35/- was given to the petitioner, so alsothe arrears from 01.12.1994 of Rs.45,054/- were givenon 07.10.2019. 3.The learned advocate for the petitioner,however, disputes the quantum of the amount receivedby the petitioner. We find that the directions issued inthe writ petition are complied with and, therefore, wedispose of the contempt petition. 4.If the petitioner has any grievance, he mayresort to the remedies available in law. (N. B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan