In Rajesh Goyal v. Income Tax Settlement Commission, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.
Issue: Coram:- THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICETIIE HON'BLE MR. ruSTICE BADARDURREZ AHMED. i) Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowedto see the [judgment.]to see the [judgment.] ii) To be referred to the reporter or not? ['] iiD Whether the judgment should be reported in theDigest?Digest?
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
),
U
T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision:- April 13 .2004
CWP No. 3858 ^OO3
Rajesh Goyal.
.....Petitioner
Through Mr. C. S.Jain, Advocate
Versus
Income tax Settlement Commission...Respondent
Through: Mr. R. C. Pandey withMr.Ajay Jha, Advocates.
Coram:-
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICETIIE HON'BLE MR. ruSTICE BADARDURREZ AHMED.
i) Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowedto see the [judgment.]to see the [judgment.]
ii)
To be referred to the reporter or not? [']
iiD Whether the judgment should be reported in theDigest?Digest?
B.C.PATEL. C.J.
For orders see Civil Writ No.3322 of 2003.
sd/-CHIEF JUSTICE
sd/-BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.
April 13,2OO4 As
Detailed signed order placedIn the file pf CW.3322 of 2003.<ffitr'1t)
(AnirikMEE)PS to HCJL3.4.2004
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.
EaseValue