Mr. Sidhartha Ray, Learned Senior Counsel Appearing On Behalf v. State Of Bihar; Air 1987 Sc 1345
High Court
19 Jul 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisnc
Parties
Mr. Sidhartha Ray, Learned Senior Counsel Appearing On Behalf v. State Of Bihar; Air 1987 Sc 1345
Date of order
19 Jul 2024
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mr. Sidhartha Ray, Learned Senior Counsel Appearing On Behalf v. State Of Bihar; Air 1987 Sc 1345, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal.
Decision: In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 3.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Order No.
01.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No. 34 of 2024
….Petitioners
M/s. Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited and another
Mr. Sidhartha Ray, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. K.K. Sahoo, Advocate -versus- ….Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Opposite Parties Bhubaneswar and others
Mr. A. Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel
CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER19.07.2024
This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. The petitioners in the present review application sought review of an order dated 14.12.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.19604 of 2023, which reads as under:
“This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Since the order impugned is appealable one, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioners to pursue their remedy before the appellate authority in accordance with law.
4. On the prayer of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, original copies/certified copies of the assessment order, if any filed, be returned to the learned counsel for the Petitioners on substitution of photocopy thereof.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.”
3. Mr. Sidhartha Ray, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners has argued that in similar set of facts in other cases, different views have been expressed and, therefore, the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 needs to be reviewed. He has made certain submissions to question the correctness of the order which is under review. He has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bir Bajrang Kumar v. State of Bihar; AIR 1987 SC 1345.
4. This Court, exercising its review jurisdiction, cannot sit as an appellate authority over an order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. We do not find any reason to review the said order dated 14.12.2023.
5. In such view of the matter, the review application stands dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)
Chief Justice
S. Behera
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedSigned by: SUMANTA BEHERADesignation: Senior StenographerReason: AuthenticationLocation: High Court of Orissa, CuttackDate: 22-Jul-2024 16:18:56
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.