Shri Subash Chand Jain v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Shri Subash Chand Jain Vs. ... Petitioner 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Gandhi Road, Salem – 2 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – I(2), Salem – 7... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution ofIndia for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the recordsof the 1[st] respondent's order in C.No.9651(140)/2007-2008/SLMdated 08.07.2009 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Baskar for Philip George For Respondents: Mr.Jayaprathap O R D E R The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ ofCertiorari, to quash the order passed by the 1[st] respondent inC.No.9651(140/2007-2008/SLM dated 08.07.2009. 2. The brief facts leading to the present case as stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that thepetitioner is a partner in a partnership firm by name, BakliwalTrading Company carrying on business of 'Sago Trading'. Thepetitioner also claims that he has income from other incomesources like property interest etc., and he is regular in filinghis income tax returns. The petitioner claims that during thefinancial year 1993-1994 relevant to the assessment year 1994-1995, the petitioner and his two minor children had receivedRs.2,00,000/- each as a gift from overseas, which the petitionerbrought it to the respective accounts and added to the capitalaccount as early as 31.03.1994. He has also filed his return ofincome to that effect. 3. The petitioner states that in the mean while, the UnionBudget was presented on 28.02.1997 had introduced the VoluntaryDisclosure of Income Scheme,1997, [in short, hereinafterreferred to 'VDIS'] which the petitioner is entitle to avail.However, the petitioner submits that he was forced to filereturn of income as a revised return of income on 08.05.1997 byincluding the said gift of Rs.6,00,000/- as his own income.After the VDIS was notified, the petitioner declaredRs.6,00,000/- as gift under VDIS and the Commissioner of IncomeTax, Coimbatore issued certificates under Section 68(2) of VDISto the petitioner as well as to his two minor children. Whilethat being the case, when the earlier returns filed underSection 143(1) of Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1994-1995 was pending before the second respondent, the saidcertificates under Section 68(2) of VIDS came to be issued andhence, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore has issued ashow cause notice seeking to revise the order of assessment onthe ground that the foreign gift had already been offered fortaxation in return of income filed by the petitioner on08.05.1997 and in the said return, such availing of VDIS was notproper and the petitioner is not entitle to get the benefitsunder the Scheme, to which the petitioner had filed an objection. 4. It is also further stated in the affidavit that theCommissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore on the objection made bythe petitioner, passed an order under Section 263 of Income TaxAct on 28.03.2001, as against which, the petitioner preferred anappeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A.No.676/Mds/2001, which finally came to be disposed by theAppellate Tribunal on 05.10.2007. Thereafter, the 1[st] respondentissued a notice dated 11.03.2008 seeking to cancel thecertificate issued under Section 68(2) of VIDS to the petitionerand his two sons on the ground that the certificates have beenobtained on 'Misrepresentation of Facts'. 5. According to the petitioner, he had filed his response tothe notice dated 11.03.2008 However, the 1[st] respondent by anorder dated 08.07.2009 has cancelled / revoked the certificateissued under Section 68(2) of VDIS invoking Section 21 ofGeneral Clauses Act, 1897 as against which the present writpetition has been filed. 6. Mr.Baskar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitsthat the jurisdiction under Section 21 of General Clauses Actcannot be invoked by the 1[st] respondent to revoke thecertificates issued under Section 68(2) of VDIS. The learnedcounsel also submitted as there being three certificates issuedindependently under Section 68(2) of VDIS, all the threecertificates cannot be cancelled under the single order made the1[st] respondent that too by issuing a single show cause notice. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would furthercontend that the 1[st] respondent has no jurisdiction to revoke thecertificate issued under VDIS after a long gap of 10 years, thedelay and latches are not being properly appreciated by the 1[st]respondent. The impugned order passed by the 1[st] respondent isperse illegal. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contendedthat the petitioner having filed the revised return to theassessment year 1994-1995 to the financial year 1993-1994,eventhough filed under VDIS, the petitioner was forced to filethe same and having availed the benefits of VDIS 1997, whichcame into the effect and notified on 01.07.1997, there isnothing wrong in filing the return under VDIS by disclosing thesaid Rs.6,00,000/- received by way of gift as his own income. 9. It is represented on behalf of the petitioner that thereis no misrepresentation neither when returns were filed for thefinancial year 1993-1994 in the assessment year 1994-1995, norwhen availing the benefits under VDIS. 10. Apart from agitating the above points, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner also submitted that if at all thecertificates are withdrawn by the 1[st] respondent, the 1[st]respondent ought to have refunded the entire amount paid underVDIS, which till date, the 1[st] respondent has not done so. 11. On the above said grounds, the learned counsel for thepetitioner prayed to quash the impugned order passed by the 1[st]respondent. In support to his arguments, he had relied upon thefollowing Judgments: (i) (1967) AIR 107 (SC) in Ghaurul Hasan and Others V. theState of Rajasthan by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. (ii) (1966) 61 ITR 269 (Mad) in Carborundum UniversalLimited V. Union of India by the Division Bench of this Court.(iii) (2002) 254 ITR 255 (Gujarat) in Vasantlal TulsidasAgarwal V. C.I.T. by High Court of Gujarat. (iv) (2000) 241 ITR 287 (AP) in Patchala Seetharamaiah V.Commissioner of Income Tax by the Division Bench of High Courtof Andhrapradesh. (v) (1998) 230 ITR 536 (AP) in Shankarlal V. I.T.O. andOthers by the Division Bench of High Court of Andhrapradesh(vi) (2007) 295 ITR 0136 in M.Srinivasa Rao V. The A.C.I.Tby this Court. (vii) (2002) 253 ITR 334 C.I.T. V. Mintu Kaltia by theDivision Bench of High Court of Gauhati. 12. In response to the said averments made by thepetitioner, the respondents had filed a detailed counterrebutting all the allegations made by him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. Per contra, Mr.Jayapratap, learned counsel for therespondents submitted that the petitioner for the assessmentyear 1994 -1995 had declared the total income of Rs.1,62,890/-However, in his capital account filed along with the return ofincome, he had showed Rs.2,00,000/- for him and Rs.2,00,000/-each as loan for his two minor sons. After filing such return,the petitioner sent a letter to the Assessing Officer dated20.02.1997 stating that he received gift from non-residentIndian in the year 1994, totaling Rs.6,00,000/-. 12. In response to the said averments made by thepetitioner, the respondents had filed a detailed counterrebutting all the allegations made by him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. Per contra, Mr.Jayapratap, learned counsel for therespondents submitted that the petitioner for the assessmentyear 1994 -1995 had declared the total income of Rs.1,62,890/-However, in his capital account filed along with the return ofincome, he had showed Rs.2,00,000/- for him and Rs.2,00,000/-each as loan for his two minor sons. After filing such return,the petitioner sent a letter to the Assessing Officer dated20.02.1997 stating that he received gift from non-residentIndian in the year 1994, totaling Rs.6,00,000/-. 14. The learned counsel for the revenue would further submitthat the petitioner, in order to declare the income under VDIS,filed a revised return voluntarily admitting the gift as incomeand sought for waiver of interest and penalty. Apart from that,the learned counsel also submitted that the notice under Section143 (2) was initiated against the petitioner for the assessmentyear 1994-1995 to which he promptly filed his reply and onlythereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore hadpassed an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on28.03.2001 and the same was challenged by the petitioner beforethe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, who has passed an order dated05.10.2007, which had become final. 15. In respect of the plea put forward by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that Section 21 of General ClausesAct cannot be invoked or the respondent has no jurisdiction toinvoke the said Section, the learned counsel for the respondentswould contend that Section 21 of General Clause Act is ofgeneral application and embodies a Rule of Construction that canbe applied, if a particular statute does not give assistance inleading to any reasonable construction so as to meet hisobjects. The learned counsel would also contend that thepetitioner has availed the VDIS by total misrepresentation offacts and abusing the Scheme. When the petitioner had alreadydeclared the income in response to the notice under Section 148,by filing the so-called revised return, the disclosure underVDIS by misrepresenting the facts, the certificates wererightly withdrawn by the 1[st] respondent, who has jurisdiction todo so. Under these circumstances, the respondents prayed tosustain the impugned order. 16. Heard both the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondentsand perused the materials available on record. 17. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner during thefinancial year 1993-1994 relevant to the assessment year 1994-1995 filed a return along with Rs.6,00,000/- added to thecapital income accounts which was processed by the 2[nd] respondent. It is also not in dispute by the petitioner that hehad filed a revised return on 08.05.1997 for the return filed on14.03.1996. Only in the revised return, the petitioner hadmentioned about Rs.2,00,000/- for himself and Rs.2,00,000/-received as gifts from NRI for each of his minor sons. However,when the VDIS was notified during the year 1997, the petitioneronce over again filed his declaration before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax disclosing Rs.6,00,000/- as income and sought waiverof penalty and certificates dated 06.01.1998 were also issuedunder Section 168(2) of VDIS to the petitioner and his two minorsons. respondent. It is also not in dispute by the petitioner that hehad filed a revised return on 08.05.1997 for the return filed on14.03.1996. Only in the revised return, the petitioner hadmentioned about Rs.2,00,000/- for himself and Rs.2,00,000/-received as gifts from NRI for each of his minor sons. However,when the VDIS was notified during the year 1997, the petitioneronce over again filed his declaration before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax disclosing Rs.6,00,000/- as income and sought waiverof penalty and certificates dated 06.01.1998 were also issuedunder Section 168(2) of VDIS to the petitioner and his two minorsons. 18. On perusal of the records, it is also clear that for thereturn filed belatedly on 14.03.1996 for the assessment year1994-1995, the petitioner received a notice under Section 143(2), which was issued on 21.01.1998 and subsequently, a noticeunder Section 148 also came to be issued, to which thepetitioner had responded by filing objection to the said noticesand thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatorepassed a final order dated 28.03.2001 under Section 263 ofIncome Tax Act. 19. Further, on Perusal of the order dated 28.03.2001, thisCourt does not find any stand taken by the petitioner for non-service of notices under Sections 143(2) and 148 of Income TaxAct, which is a proposal under Section 263 of Income Tax Act.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore by an order dated28.03.2001 had given a detail finding and held that as perSection 148 of Income Tax Act, notice has been issued prior tothe revised return filed by the assessee, the completion ofassessment on the basis of return filed by the assessee on08.05.1997 was in order and the action of assessing officer inommitting to bring the tax of the NRI gifts on the erroneousassumption that a valid declaration had been filed under VDIS iserroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue andhad set aside the order dated 10.02.1999 passed under Section143 of Income Tax Act and directed to re-do the assessment inaccordance with law. This order was challenged by the petitionerherein before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and byorder dated 05.10.2007 the said authority has passed thefollowing order: '4. After carefully considering the rival'ssubmissions, the basic question which is important fordeciding these appeals, when valid certificate isissued u/s.68(2) of VDIS, 1997, then whether immunityis available to the assessee or not. We are of theview that unless and until such certificate iswithdrawn, immunity would be available to the assessee.We specifically asked the learned DepartmentalRepresentative at the Bench, as to whether such VDIS certificate has been withdrawn. He could not produceany evidence that VDIS certificate has been withdrawn.Therefore, this certificate still remains alive and theassessee shall be entitled to amnesty granted underVDIS, 1997. In this background of the matter, we areof the considered view that the assessee's appeal filedagainst the order passed u/s 263 should succeed.' 20. In the meanwhile, the 1[st] respondent had initiated theproceedings by issuing a proper notice to cancel thecertificates issued under Section 68(2) of VDIS, 1997 dated06.01.1998 on the ground that such certificates were obtained byfraud and misrepresentation. It would be appropriate toreproduce Sections 64 and 68 of VDIS and the same is as follows: Section 64 Charge on tax on voluntarily disclosedincome – (1) Subject to the provisions of this scheme,where any person makes, on or after the date ofcommencement of this Scheme but on or before the 31[st]Dec., 1997 a declaration in accordance with theprovisions of S.65 in respect of any income chargeableto tax under the IT Act for any assessment year - (a) for which he has failed to furnish a returnunder Section 139 of the act; Section 64 Charge on tax on voluntarily disclosedincome – (1) Subject to the provisions of this scheme,where any person makes, on or after the date ofcommencement of this Scheme but on or before the 31[st]Dec., 1997 a declaration in accordance with theprovisions of S.65 in respect of any income chargeableto tax under the IT Act for any assessment year - (a) for which he has failed to furnish a returnunder Section 139 of the act; (b) which he has failed to disclose in a return ofincome furnished by him under the IT Act before thedate of commencement of this schedule; (c) which has escaped assessment by reason of theomission or failure on the part of such person to makea retrun under the IT Act or to disclose fully andtrully all materials facts necessary for his assessmentor otherwise. Then, notwithstanding anything contained in the ITAct or in any Finance act, income-tax shall be chargedin respect of the income so declared (such income beinghereinafter referred to as the voluntarily disclosedincome) at the rates specified hereunder, namely: (i) in the case of a declarant, being a company or afirm, at the rate of 35 per cent of the voluntarilydisclosed income;(ii) in the case of a declarant, being a person otherthan a company or a firm, at the rate of 30 per cent ofthe voluntarily disclosed income.(2) Nothing contained in sub-s. (1) shall apply inrelation to- (i) the income assessable for any assessment year forwhich a notice under Section 142 or Section 148 of theIT Act has been served upon such person and the returnhas not been furnished before the commencement of thisScheme; (ii) the income in respect of the previous year in which a search under Section 132 of the IT Act wasinitiated or requistioned under section 132A of the ITAct was made, or survey under Section 133A of the ITAct was carried out or in respect of any earlierprevious year.Section 68: 'The amount of the voluntarily disclosed incomeshall not be included in the total income of thedeclarant for any assessment year under the Income-TaxAct, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:(i) the declarant credits such amount in the booksof account, if any, maintained by him for any source ofincome or in any other record, and intimates the creditso made to the Assessing Officer; and (ii) the income-tax in respect of the voluntarilydisclosed income is paid by the declarant within thetime specified in section 66 or section 67. (iii) The Commissioner, shall on an applicationmade by the declarant, grant a certificate to himsetting forth the particulars of the voluntarilydisclosed income and the amount of income-tax paid inrespect of the same.' 21. On the cursory reading of Section 64 (2)(i), it is clearthat no person can avail the scheme in relation to the incomeassessable for any assessment year, for which a notice underSections 142 or 148 of Income Tax Act has been served upon suchperson and return has not been furnished before the commencementof this scheme. 22. The petitioner, who is fully aware that if a noticeunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act has been served uponhim, the scheme would not be applicable to him or he cannotavail the benefits of the scheme, had filed his return of incomefor the assessment year 1994-1995 with the 2[nd] respondent only on14.03.1996 belatedly, under Section 139(4) of Income Tax Act andsubsequently, a revised return on 08.05.1997 seems to have beenserved with notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act. 22. The petitioner, who is fully aware that if a noticeunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act has been served uponhim, the scheme would not be applicable to him or he cannotavail the benefits of the scheme, had filed his return of incomefor the assessment year 1994-1995 with the 2[nd] respondent only on14.03.1996 belatedly, under Section 139(4) of Income Tax Act andsubsequently, a revised return on 08.05.1997 seems to have beenserved with notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act. 23. It also clear from the records that the petitioner hadappeared before the assessing officer in response to the noticeissued under Section 148, which subsequently was dealt withculminating into a final order being passed on 28.03.2001 underSection 263 of Income Tax Act. Thereafter, as against the saidorder, admittedly, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, whichcame to be finally decided on 05.10.2007. When the schemerestricts the application of the benefits under the Scheme forthose persons, who have been served with Notice under sections https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 142 or 148 of the Income Tax Act, prior to the notification ofthe VDIS scheme, 1997, the petitioner cannot avail the benefitsunder the scheme, he having been served with the notice underSection 148 of Income Tax Act. 24. On a mere perusal of the records, it is clear that thepetitioner has misrepresented in the VDIS scheme thatRs.6,00,000/- as his own income, which was not disclosedearlier. Contradicting to his own original returns filedearlier on 14.03.1996 for the Assessment year 1994-1995declaring that 6,00,000/- of Rupees was received by him as giftfrom overseas, a revised return on 08.05.1997 has been filedunder VDIS. It is clear that VDIS was notified by the CentralGovernment on 01.07.1997 only. Suppressing the returns filedearlier on 14.03.1996, the petitioner has filed his revisedreturn on 08.05.1997 by including Rs.6,00,000/- as gift receivedfrom the NRI. 25. This Court is unable to accept the arguments put forthby the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was nomisrepresentation in filing the returns or availing the benefitsunder the VDIS and also not able to accept the contentionraised by the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner has notreceived any notice under Section 148 for the assessment year1994-1995. The records are contradicting the petitioner'sargument. The petitioner had participated and filed his responseto the show cause notice under Section 263 of Income Tax Actseeking to revise the order of assessment year 10.02.1999 andthereafter, the issue went up to the stage of appeal before theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal which passed the final order on05.10.2007 and thereby leading to cancellation of certificatesby order dated 08.07.2009 by the 1[st] respondent. However, theproceedings initiated by the 1[st] respondent in withdrawing orrevoking the certificates issued under Section 68(2) of VIDS istotally on the ground of misrepresentation made by thepetitioner. 26. With regard to the argument put forth by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that the 1[st] respondent had nojurisdiction to invoke Section 21 of General Clauses Act, andto revoke the certificates issued under Section 68(2) of VDIS,it would be appropriate to see Section 21 of General Clauses Act.'21. Power to issue, to include power to add to,amend, vary or rescind, notifications, orders, rules orbye-laws – Where, by any Central act, or Regulation, apower to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-lawis conferred, then that power includes a power,exercisable in the like manner and subject to the likesanction, and conditions (if any), to add to, amendvary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules orbye-laws so issued'. 26. With regard to the argument put forth by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that the 1[st] respondent had nojurisdiction to invoke Section 21 of General Clauses Act, andto revoke the certificates issued under Section 68(2) of VDIS,it would be appropriate to see Section 21 of General Clauses Act.'21. Power to issue, to include power to add to,amend, vary or rescind, notifications, orders, rules orbye-laws – Where, by any Central act, or Regulation, apower to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-lawis conferred, then that power includes a power,exercisable in the like manner and subject to the likesanction, and conditions (if any), to add to, amendvary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules orbye-laws so issued'. 27. On a careful reading of the above Section, it is clearthat the scope of the Act will apply to any Central Act orRegulation and also to the Constitutions, as it is the Rule ofinterpretation which has been made applicable to theConstitution in the same manner as it applied to any Central Actor Regulation. No doubt, under the above Act, the power isvested with the authority to make an order which implies a powerto revoke or modify or vary that order at any subsequent stages,unless there is a specific bar. 28. On a conjoint reading of Section 68 of VDIS and Section21 of General Clauses Act, it is clear that the Scheme does notprovide for any enquiry or investigation prior to the issuanceof certificates under Section 68(2) of VDIS, when that being so,the only remedy available for the respondents is to availSection 21 of General Clauses Act, which is a Generalapplication and the Rule of construction that can be applied tostatute does not provide any assistance for reasonableconstruction, so as to meet its object. In this regard also,this Court has no hesitation to reject the argument of thelearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as the authorityhas jurisdiction to invoke Section 21 of the General Clauses Actto withdraw or revoke the certificates issued Section 68(2) ofVDIS. 29. With regard to the citations referred by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that allthe citations on facts as well as on the legal grounds and ontheir legal preposition are not applicable to the present caseas per the details given below:- (i) (2002) 254 ITR 255 (Gujarat) in Vasantlal TulsidasAgarwal V. C.I.T., as the facts of the case pertains to therefund of excess amount, whereby Section 70 of the Finance Act1997 cannot be invoked to deny the refund of excess amount paidby the declarant over and above the tax payable on the declaredincome, under the voluntary disclosure scheme, excess amountdirected to the refunded to the petitioner together with 15%thereon. The facts of the case is not applicable to the presentcase on hand. (ii) (2000) 241 ITR 287 (AP) in Patchala Seetharamaiah V.Commissioner of Income Tax here also Section 70 of the FinanceAct 1997 cannot have any application to a situation, where thetax paid beyond the prescribed period and accordingly, retentionof the said tax department is illegal and the petitioner isentitle to refund the same. This case is not applicable to thecase on hand. The case in hand pertains to the refund of taxpaid beyond the prescribed period of VDIS scheme and notapplicable. (ii) (2000) 241 ITR 287 (AP) in Patchala Seetharamaiah V.Commissioner of Income Tax here also Section 70 of the FinanceAct 1997 cannot have any application to a situation, where thetax paid beyond the prescribed period and accordingly, retentionof the said tax department is illegal and the petitioner isentitle to refund the same. This case is not applicable to thecase on hand. The case in hand pertains to the refund of taxpaid beyond the prescribed period of VDIS scheme and notapplicable. (iii) (1998) 230 ITR 536 (AP) in Shankarlal V. I.T.O. andOthers, deals with Section 64(2) of the Finance Act and it onlydenies the benefit of voluntary disclosure of income that wasnot returned within the income prescribed under notice Sections142 or 148 and which expired before the commencement of thescheme, or the income which is detected in a search underSection 132, on a requisition under 132A or in a Survey underSection 133A and they would say that the undisclosed incomeother than such detected income in relation to the previous yearcan still be declared, and hence it is constitutionally valid,this case on hand pertains to adjustment of amount anddeclaration itself is not acceptable and not falling underSection 68(1) of VDIS 1997. (iii) (2007) 295 ITR 0136 in M.Srinivasa Rao V. theA.C.I.T., eventhough time limit is not p20rescribed underSection 153(3) of the Act, the impugned proceedings initiated bythe respondent after a lapse of 6 years cannot be allowed tocontinue and the impunged order was quashed. But this case ispertaining to the limitation and applicability to Section 153(3)of the Act has no application to the case on hand. 30. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the viewthat the petitioner cannot avail the benefits under VDIS, havingcontravened Section 64(2)(1), and as the notice under Section148 of the Act was issued on 22.06.1997, which is prior to thenotification of VDIS, wherein which the petitioner declared thegifts from NRI amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- and since there isprohibition under VDIS, that when the amount so declared isalready disclosed by the assessee in the return of income filedbefore the Scheme came into operation, the same cannot be statedonce again by way of revised return of income. 31. In the result, the order passed by the 1[st] respondent iswell found and the petitioner has misrepresented before theauthority to avail the benefits under the Scheme VDIS bysuppressing the declaration made in the returns filed prior tothe notification of VDIS. Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is alsodismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition isalso dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssd To 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Gandhi Road, Salem – 2 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – I(2), Salem – 7 Ward – I(2), Salem – 7 +1cc to Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar, Advocate sr.68755 W.P.No.3223 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 ca(co)nr 26/09/2019