Mahendra Singh v. Union Of India
High Court
25 Apr 2022 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · rhcjodh240618
Parties
Mahendra Singh v. Union Of India
Date of order
25 Apr 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mahendra Singh v. Union Of India, the High Court (2022) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11093/2021
1. Income Tax Contingent Employees Union, Income TaxOffice, Jodhpur. (Association Of Casual Labours Of IncomeTax, Rajasthan Region).Office, Jodhpur. (Association Of Casual Labours Of IncomeTax, Rajasthan Region).
2. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh Tak, Aged About 41Years, R/o 95-A, Abhay Nagar, Magra Punjla, Jodhpur-342001. (A Member Of The Union).Years, R/o 95-A, Abhay Nagar, Magra Punjla, Jodhpur-342001. (A Member Of The Union).
----PetitionersVersus
1. Union Of India, Through The Finance Secretary, MinistryOf Finance, Department Of Revenue, Government OfIndia, New Delhi - 110001.Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Government OfIndia, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Paota, C-Road,Jodhpur 342010Jodhpur 342010
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Gupta (through VC)For Respondent(s): --For Respondent(s): --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
25/04/2022
Order
On 23.03.2022, the Court directed the petitioner’s counsel tofile certified copy of the impugned judgment and to place onrecord appropriate document for establishing the status of ShriJagdish Solanki and Shri Mahendra Singh Tak as office bearers ofthe petitioner Union.
Interlocutory application (No.03/2022) has been filed by ShriGupta in response to the said direction. Alongwith the application,some photostat copies of purported meetings/resolutions of thepetitioner Union have been filed. However, the documents are not
supported by affidavit. Apparently, thus, the petitioner’s counselhas failed to comply with the order dated 23.03.2022. The writpetition is, thus dismissed for want of prosecution.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
11-Sudhir Asopa/Devesh/-
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.