J. Subburajan ( v. Subramanian (Anvps2304R

W.A. (MD) No.417 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTRESERVED ON: 19.06.2020DELIVERED ON: 30.06.2020CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASHandTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. PUGALENDHIW.A. (MD) No.417 of 2020 and C.M.P. (MD) Nos.2831 and 3158 of 2020V.V. Mineralsrepresented by its PartnerS. Vaikundarajan17C KeeraikaranthattuTisaiyanvillaiTirunelveli DistrictAppellant / Petitionervs.1The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar RoadBibikulam,Madurai 625 0022The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Circle – 2, MaduraiKulamangalam Main RoadMeenambalpuram,Madurai 625 0023The Deputy Director of Income Tax Central Circle – 2, MaduraiKulamangalam Main RoadMeenambalpuram,Madurai 625 002Respondents Writ Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentchallenging the order dated 28.02.2020 passed in W.P. (MD) No. 16869of 2019. Prayer in WP(MD)No.16869 of 2019Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, praying this Court Calling for the records ofthe 1st respondent comprised in the impugned order No.8/2018-19bearing C.No.337/Pr.CIT-2/MDU/2018-19 dt.19.2.2019 and quash thesame. For appellantMr.V. Lakshmi Narayananfor M/s. Kingsly SolomonFor R1Ms. S. SrimathyCentral Govt. Standing CounselFor RR 2 & 3Mr. T.R. Senthil KumarSenior Standing Counsel for I.T. Dept.assisted byfor Mrs. K.G. Usha RaniStanding Counsel for I.T. Dept. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT (delivered by P.N. PRAKASH, J.)The challenge in this intra-Court appeal is to the order dated28.02.2020 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.16869 of 2019, refusing to quash the transfer of case orderdated 19.02.2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,Madurai – 2. 2For the sake of convenience and better understanding offacts, the private parties are referred to by their names and theauthorities are referred to by their designation. 3To appreciate the rival submissions, it may be necessary togive a thumbnail sketch of the undisputed facts: 3.1There are three V.V. Minerals referred to in the orderpassed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai,impugned in the writ petition, with each having a distinct PermanentAccount Number (PAN). Ergo, we designate them as follows: 1. V.V. Minerals No.1 (PAN ) 2. V.V. Minerals No.2 (PAN ) 3. V.V. Minerals No.3 (PAN ). 3.2Apart from the above three V.V. Minerals, the otherjuristic persons referred to in the order impugned in the writpetition, are as under: 1. V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd. (PAN ) 2. V.V. Marine Products (PAN ) 3. Shree Sanghvi Mills Pvt. Ltd. (PAN ) 4. V.V. Mart (PAN ) 5. Ajax Media Tech Pvt. Ltd. (PAN ) 3.3Thus, there are eight juristic persons and apart fromthem, there are the following 12 natural persons with individualPANs: 1. S. Vaikundarajan (PAN ) 2. S. Jegatheesan (PAN ) 3. J. Subburajan (PAN ) 4. V. Subramanian ( ) 5. J. Muthurajan (PAN ) 6. J. Chenthilrajan (PAN AHZPC 0253F) 7. Subasaranya (PAN BRIPS 1638E) 8. V.Velmurugan (PAN AEDPV 5896G) 9. J. Renuka (PAN ABXPJ 7678R) 10.S. Karthiyayini (PAN BACPK 6338N) 11.V. Chandraboopathy (PAN AEUPC 3562R) 12.C. Simarna (PAN ) 3.4All the aforesaid 20 persons were registered for Income Taxpurpose with the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirunelveli.Even according to V.V. Minerals, they are a leader in Tamil Nadu inhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the mineral industry and they have established a sterling reputationin their business circles and are renowned for their commitment toquality and ethical business practices, vide paragraph no.3 of theaffidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 4. V. Subramanian ( ) 5. J. Muthurajan (PAN ) 6. J. Chenthilrajan (PAN AHZPC 0253F) 7. Subasaranya (PAN BRIPS 1638E) 8. V.Velmurugan (PAN AEDPV 5896G) 9. J. Renuka (PAN ABXPJ 7678R) 10.S. Karthiyayini (PAN BACPK 6338N) 11.V. Chandraboopathy (PAN AEUPC 3562R) 12.C. Simarna (PAN ) 3.4All the aforesaid 20 persons were registered for Income Taxpurpose with the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirunelveli.Even according to V.V. Minerals, they are a leader in Tamil Nadu inhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the mineral industry and they have established a sterling reputationin their business circles and are renowned for their commitment toquality and ethical business practices, vide paragraph no.3 of theaffidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 3.5Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel representingMr.Kingsly Solomon, learned counsel on record for V.V. Minerals,submitted that except C. Simarna, the other 11 natural persons arePartners/Directors in the 8 juristic persons referred to above; 3.6Concededly, from 25.10.2018, the Income Tax sleuthsconducted simultaneous searches under Section 132 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (for conciseness “the IT Act”) in the business premises ofthe juristic persons and in the residential premises of the non-juristic and natural persons. 3.7According to the Income Tax Department, the searches wereconducted between 25.10.2018 and 24.12.2018 and incriminatingmaterials tending to show huge tax evasions were recovered. 3.8In South Tamil Nadu, the Madurai District has two CentralCircles of the Income Tax Department, under which, TirunelveliDistrict also falls. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,Madurai, issued individual notices dated 28.01.2019 under Section127 of the IT Act to all the 20 assessees calling for objections, ifany, for the proposal to transfer their assessments files, fromTirunelveli to Madurai. 3.9At this juncture, it will be appropriate to extractverbatim the relevant portion of the notice dated 28.01.2019 thatwas issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, toV.V. Minerals No.2: “It is proposed to transfer your case from theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – I,Tirunelveli, to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle-2, Madurai under Section 127 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961. The reason for the proposed transfer isthat detailed, coordinated and centralized investigationis necessary.” 3.10 In response to the aforesaid notice, V.V. Minerals No.2addressed a letter dated 31.01.2019 asking for the relevantsupporting documents to justify the transfer, besides seeking 30days' time to submit their reply.3.11 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, sent acommunication dated 11.02.2019 to V.V. Minerals No.2, fixing thedate of hearing as 18.02.2019 at 4.30 p.m., in the Income Taxoffice, Madurai. 3.12 V.V. Minerals No.2 followed it up with a letter datedhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/16.02.2019 once again reiterating that they have not been furnished with the relevant documents for justifying the transfer of theircase from Tirunelveli to Madurai.3.13 Personal hearing was afforded to the assessees on18.02.2019 at 4.30 p.m. The assessees took a stand that theirChartered Accountant is stationed at Tirunelveli and that he is 85years old and therefore, it will cause hardship for them if theircases are transferred to Madurai. 3.14 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai,considered the objections and by order dated 19.02.2019, directedthe transfer of the files of the 20 assessees from the TirunelveliCircle to the Central Circle-2, Madurai. Thereafter, the Income Taxauthorities at the Central Circle-2, Madurai, issued a notice dated16.07.2019 under Section 153-A of the IT Act to all the assessees,including V.V. Minerals No.2, which is not under challenge here. 3.14 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai,considered the objections and by order dated 19.02.2019, directedthe transfer of the files of the 20 assessees from the TirunelveliCircle to the Central Circle-2, Madurai. Thereafter, the Income Taxauthorities at the Central Circle-2, Madurai, issued a notice dated16.07.2019 under Section 153-A of the IT Act to all the assessees,including V.V. Minerals No.2, which is not under challenge here. 3.15 Calling into question the legality and validity of thetransfer order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the Principal Commissionerof Income Tax, Madurai, V.V. Minerals No.2 filed W.P. (MD) No.16869of 2019. 4At the time of admission of W.P. (MD) No.16869 of 2019, alearned Single Judge of this Court granted stay of the transferorder dated 19.02.2019 on 05.08.2019 and after a prolonged battle,the matter was heard finally and disposed of by another learnedSingle Judge of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2020, dismissingthe writ petition and sustaining the transfer order dated19.02.2019, assailing the correctness of which, the instant intra-Court appeal has been preferred by V.V. Minerals No.2. 5During the hearing of this intra-Court appeal, we rummagedthrough the papers in order to ascertain as to which of the threeV.V. Minerals had filed the writ petition, because, there is noreference to the PAN in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition. When we posed this pointed question to Mr.LakshmiNarayanan, he submitted that V.V. Minerals No.2 (PAN ) hadfiled the writ petition and accepting his word, we proceed furtherto continue referring to the appellant/writ petitioner asV.V.Minerals No.2, for the sake of convenience. When we askedMr.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income TaxDepartment, as to whether the other 19 assessees had filed any writpetition challenging the transfer of their cases, he answered in thenegative. Therefore, we proceeded on the premise that out of the 20persons referred to in the transfer order dated 19.02.2019 impugnedin the writ petition, only V.V. Minerals No.2 is before us. 6When this intra-Court appeal came up for admission, aDivision Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16.03.2020, grantedinterim stay of the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the learnedhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Single Judge, till 30.03.2020. 7The Income Tax Department filed C.M.P.(MD) No.3158 of 2020in this intra-Court appeal for having the stay order dated16.03.2020 vacated. When the vacate stay petition came up forhearing before another Division Bench on 01.06.2020, adjournment wassought by V.V. Minerals No.2, but, the learned counsel for theIncome Tax Department strongly objected for grant of adjournment.Recording the objection so made by the learned counsel for theIncome Tax Department, the Division Bench ordered as under:“2.Havingregardtothepracticaldifficulties expressed by the learned counsel appearingfor the respondent, this Court is inclined to adjournthe matter to 15.06.2020. It is made clear to thelearned counsel for the respondent that he or his SeniorCounsel engaged by him must be ready to argue the maincase on 15.06.2020either by making physical appearanceor through Video Conference. In case, the learnedcounsel for the respondent is unable to bring his SeniorCounsel from Chennai to Madurai, he should inform theRegistry earlier, so that the matter will be listed forhearing through Video Conference. 3.The interim order granted earlier is extended till then.”(emphasis supplied)8The matter was not listed on 15.06.2020, but, was listedonly on 19.06.2020. 3.The interim order granted earlier is extended till then.”(emphasis supplied)8The matter was not listed on 15.06.2020, but, was listedonly on 19.06.2020. 9Mr. Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for theIncome Tax Department, submitted that there is absolutely noinfirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and thatthe writ petition has been filed only after the issuance of noticedated 16.07.2019 under Section 153-A of the IT Act by the CentralCircle-2, Madurai, in order to stall the further proceedings. 10Mr. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel for V.V. MineralsNo.2, submitted that the show cause notice dated 28.01.2019 does notcontain reasons for the proposal to transfer the cases from theTirunelveli Circle to the Central Circle-2, Madurai and therefore,the transfer order dated 19.02.2019 founded upon such a defectivenotice cannot be sustained. He further took this Court to thepreamble portion of the transfer order dated 19.02.2019 andsubmitted that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai,has not acted on his own, but has acted on the letter dated03.01.2019 of the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation),Chennai. Building upon his argument, he drew the attention of thisCourt to Section 127(1) of the IT Act and submitted that the wholelot of officers have the power to effect transfer, which includeshttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Chennai and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai and when both of themhave concurrent powers, the exercise of power by the latter at therequest of the former, is bad in law.In this context, it isprofitable to extract Section 127(1) of the IT Act as under:“Power to transfer cases: 127. (1) The Principal Director General or DirectorGeneral or Principal Chief Commissioner or ChiefCommissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissionermay, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunityof being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible todo so, and after recording his reasons for doing so,transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officerssubordinate to him (whether with or without concurrentjurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or AssessingOfficers (whether with or without concurrentjurisdiction) also subordinate to him.” 11Mr. Lakshmi Narayanan drew the attention of this Court tothe Division Bench judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Shri MulChand Malu vs. Union of India and 8 others[1], wherein, it has beenheld that a show cause notice should contain reasons for transfer,so that the assessee is in a position to give an effectiverepresentation to it. He placed further reliance upon the DivisionBench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in VijayasanthiInvestments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax andOthers[2] and the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta inChotanagpur Industrial Gases (P) Ltd. and others vs. Commissioner ofIncome Tax and others[3]. 12 This Court gave its careful thought and anxiousconsideration to the rival submissions. 13It is an admitted fact that the road distance betweenTirunelveli and Madurai is just 158 kms. V.V. Minerals and theirassociates were being assessed by the Tirunelveli Circle. Searcheswere conducted from 25.10.2018 to 24.12.2018 and huge materialswere seized. According to the Income Tax Department, from25.10.2018, searches were conducted in 63 premises spread acrossvarious parts of Tamil Nadu and also in other parts of the countryrelating to V.V.Minerals and the Department has unearthedundisclosed income to the tune of Rs.2,262 crores. 14In this backdrop, the Director General of Income Tax(Investigation), Chennai, appears to have addressed a letter dated 1W.P. (C) No.5828 of 2015 decided on 25.02.20162(1991) 187 ITR 405https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/3(1998) 233 ITR 377 (Cal) 14In this backdrop, the Director General of Income Tax(Investigation), Chennai, appears to have addressed a letter dated 1W.P. (C) No.5828 of 2015 decided on 25.02.20162(1991) 187 ITR 405https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/3(1998) 233 ITR 377 (Cal) 03.01.2019 to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai, suggesting transfer of cases of 20 assessees from theTirunelveli Circle to the Central Circle-2, Madurai. The PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, issued a show cause noticedated 28.01.2019 under Section 127 of the IT Act, wherein, it isstated that the reason for the proposed transfer is that, detailed,coordinated and centralised investigation is necessary. Thus, it ismanifest and limpid that this is not a case where no reason has beenassigned in the show cause notice for transfer of the cases. In thecases relied upon by Mr.Lakshmi Narayanan, be it noted that theIncome Tax authorities transferred the cases from one State toanother State, whereas, in the case on hand, the cases have beentransferred from the Tirunelveli Circle to the neighbouring CentralCircle-2, Madurai and not out of Tamil Nadu. 15To expatiate, in Shri Mul Chand Malu (supra), the caseswere transferred from Gauhati to New Delhi. In ChotanagpurIndustrial Gases (P) Ltd. (supra), the case was transferred fromCalcutta to Patna. In Vijayasanthi Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra),the case was transferred from Vishakapatnam to Bombay. Thus, thejudgments relied upon by Mr. Lakshmi Narayanan are distinguishableon facts. 16We are aware that Section 127 of the IT Act does notcreate any geographical classification. Nevertheless, the judgmentsof Courts should not be read as Euclid's theorem, but, should beunderstood in the context in which they were rendered, and a blindand pedantic following of precedents is not expected ofConstitutional Courts. 17Coming to the assigning of reasons in the show causenotice, in Shri Mul Chand Malu (supra), the Division Bench of theGauhati High Court has held as under:“18. . . . To facilitate a fair opportunity, the showcause notice must disclose the reason or the gist thereofas to why the transfer of jurisdiction to an officer atNew Delhi is necessitated. 19. Moreover, the ground of transfer must have nexustowards “administrative convenience” and “coordinatedinvestigation”, as is relfected in the impugned transferorder. But, unfortunately, these twin reasons of“administrativeconvenience”and“coordinatedinvestigation”, are not reflected in the show cause noticeand therefore, in our opinion, the assessees were deniedof a reasonable opportunity of hearing a envisaged by law.In our view, the principles of natural justice have to becomplied at every stage and violation at the initial stagecannot be cured through additional reasons incorporated inthe final order.”(emphasis supplied)https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 18From the above judgment, it can be inferred that a showcause notice should disclose the reason or the gist thereof, whichwas absent in the said case. Whereas, in the case on hand, the showcause notice has spelt out the reasons for the proposed transfer ofthe cases. Whether the reasons so given are sufficient orinsufficient, cannot be the subject matter of judicial review. To benoted, this is not a case of preventive detention, where, thepersonal liberty of a person is sought to be stifled by keeping himin custody. This is a case where the assessment files are beingtransferred from one city to a neighbouring city hardly 158 kms.away, in the same State. What inconvenience can this cause to V.V.Minerals No.2, especially when they have business and offices inseveral cities? 18From the above judgment, it can be inferred that a showcause notice should disclose the reason or the gist thereof, whichwas absent in the said case. Whereas, in the case on hand, the showcause notice has spelt out the reasons for the proposed transfer ofthe cases. Whether the reasons so given are sufficient orinsufficient, cannot be the subject matter of judicial review. To benoted, this is not a case of preventive detention, where, thepersonal liberty of a person is sought to be stifled by keeping himin custody. This is a case where the assessment files are beingtransferred from one city to a neighbouring city hardly 158 kms.away, in the same State. What inconvenience can this cause to V.V.Minerals No.2, especially when they have business and offices inseveral cities? 19Mr. Senthil Kumar contended that after the cases weretransferred to the Central Circle-2, Madurai, the Central Circle-2,Madurai, has issued notice under Section 153-A of the IT Act andthose proceedings have to be completed within the time stipulatedtherein and that the stay granted by this Court is impeding theprocess. 20As a riposte, Mr. Lakshmi Narayanan made two foldsubmissions. According to him, firstly, the stay granted by theCourt will bring to a halt, the running of limitation period andsecondly, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Central Governmentitself has extended the limitation period upto 31.12.2020. 21With regard to the first submission of Mr. LakshmiNarayanan, Mr. Senthil Kumar submitted that V.V. Minerals No.2 hadchallenged only the transfer order, that too belatedly, and hadobtained the order of stay and not the proceedings under Section153-A of the IT Act and therefore, in the absence of stay of theproceedings under Section 153-A, ibid., the stay that has beengranted in respect of transfer of proceedings will not save runningof the period of limitation of the proceedings under Section 153-Aof the IT Act. This Court finds sufficient substance and force inthe submission of Mr. Senthil Kumar. 22Coming to the contention of Mr. Lakshmi Narayanan that theDirector General of Income Tax (Investigation) and the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, have concurrent powers underSection 127(1) of the IT Act for transfer of cases and therefore,the decision of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai,to transfer the cases, based on the proposal given by the DirectorGeneral of Income Tax (Investigation) shows non application of mindon the part of the latter and failure on his part to exercise thejurisdiction under Section 127(1) ibid., a perusal of Section 127(1), ibid., extracted supra does not show that the Director Generalof Income Tax (Investigation) has the power under the saidprovision. Had he had the power, he himself would have taken stepsfor transfer of the cases. Assuming for a moment that he has thehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ power, the sending of proposal by him to the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Circle-2, Madurai, suggesting transfer of cases, willnot lead to the inference that he had abdicated his power and thatthe Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, had not appliedhis mind independently. A reading of the transfer order shows thatthe Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, has approved theproposal vide letter dated 21.01.2019 and thereafter, the show causenotice under Section 127(2), ibid., was issued on 28.01.2019. ThisCourt does not find any reason whatsoever to infer that thePrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, had blindly towed theline of the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), ascontended by Mr. Lakshmi Narayanan. power, the sending of proposal by him to the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Circle-2, Madurai, suggesting transfer of cases, willnot lead to the inference that he had abdicated his power and thatthe Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, had not appliedhis mind independently. A reading of the transfer order shows thatthe Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, has approved theproposal vide letter dated 21.01.2019 and thereafter, the show causenotice under Section 127(2), ibid., was issued on 28.01.2019. ThisCourt does not find any reason whatsoever to infer that thePrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, had blindly towed theline of the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), ascontended by Mr. Lakshmi Narayanan. 23It is the case of V.V. Minerals No.2 that they have notbeen supplied with the documents for effectively giving reply to theshow cause notice dated 28.01.2019 issued under Section 127 of theIT Act. It is indeed hard to fathom for this Court as to whatdocuments V.V. Minerals No.2 want from the Department. If they wantsearch and seizure documents, that cannot be furnished to them in aproceedings under Section 127 of the IT Act. Yet another grievanceof V.V. Minerals No.2 is that their Chartered Accountant is a veryelderly person domiciled in Tirunelveli and that he will find itdifficult to come to Madurai. This grievance is also imaginary,because, the Income Tax returns are now filed online. The case ofthe Department that the Central Circle-2, Madurai, has betterinfrastructure like strong rooms to keep the seized documents, etc.cannot be simply wished away. 24After hearing both sides extensively, when this Courtexpressed its mind that it would pass final orders in the intra-Court appeal itself, Mr.Lakshmi Narayanan firmly and resolutely,but, of course, politely, submitted that he has argued only theVacate Stay Petition and that he has not argued the main case. TheRegistry also placed before us, an e-mail sent by Mr. KingslySolomon, learned counsel on record for V.V. Minerals No.2, wherein,he has stated that he is not in a position to appear through VideoConferencing without accessing the case bundles. We do understandthe predicaments and compulsions of advocates, especially when theyperceive that the sailing before a Court is rough. However, sinceMr.Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel engaged by Mr. KingslySolomon, argued extensively before us citing all the above rulings,we politely negatived their request for adjournment of the main caseto another date for the following reasons: ➢At the time of admission of this intra-Court appeal on16.03.2020, this Court granted interim stay till30.03.2020 and posted the matter for orders. In themeanwhile, the Income Tax Department filed C.M.P. (MD)No.3158 of 2020 for vacating the order of interim staygranted on 16.03.2020 and when the matter was listed onhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ➢At the time of admission of this intra-Court appeal on16.03.2020, this Court granted interim stay till30.03.2020 and posted the matter for orders. In themeanwhile, the Income Tax Department filed C.M.P. (MD)No.3158 of 2020 for vacating the order of interim staygranted on 16.03.2020 and when the matter was listed onhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 01.06.2020, the Income Tax Department was ready forarguments, but, the learned counsel for V.V. MineralsNo.2 sought adjournment. This has been recorded by theCourt in the order dated 01.06.2020 and the matter wasadjourned to 15.06.2020 specifically for taking up of themain case (See paragraph no.7 above, wherein, therelevant portion of the order dated 16.03.2020 has beenextracted). Therefore, V.V. Minerals No.2, who areenjoying an order of stay passed by this Court, know fullwell that the matter will be taken up finally on15.06.2020. For some reason or the other, the matter wasnot listed on 15.06.2020 and was listed on 19.06.2020 andwe heard both sides elaborately. Therefore, we found nojustification in acceding to the request of the learnedcounsel for V.V. Minerals No.2 to adjourn the main caseto another date. Hence, we reserved orders in the maincase on 19.06.2020. Thereafter, the Registry receivedwritten submissions by e-mail from both sides which wetook on record. We are not passing orders on the VacateStay Petition and keeping the intra-Court appeal pendingfor another day, because, the dispute falls in a verynarrow compass requiring no further hearing. In view of the aforemade discussion, the instant intra-Courtappeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Costs made easy.Connected C.M.Ps. are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) / /2020