Case LawHigh Court › Siddheshwar Chatterjee v. Union Of India...

Siddheshwar Chatterjee v. Union Of India & Ors

High Court 17 Jun 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Siddheshwar Chatterjee v. Union Of India & Ors
Date of order
17 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Siddheshwar Chatterjee v. Union Of India & Ors, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.

Decision: The petition is therefore rejected.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 431 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 431 OF 2008 Siddheshwar Chatterjee ..Petitioner versus Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. B. Rajan for the Petitioner. Mr. A. D. Kango i/b. Mrs. P. P. Bhosale for the Respondents. CORAM : S.B. MHASE & A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE : 17TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 17TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. P.C. . The petitioner was an Income Tax officer. He was removed from the services after conducting an enquiry by an Order dated 14.2.1994. The said order is challenged by filing O.A. before the C.A.T. coupled with an application for condonation of delay on 26.7.2005. There is a delay of 11 years and more. The ground for condonation of delay agitated by the petitioner was that he was suffering from depression, mental illness etc. and therefore was not in a position to prosecute the legal remedies. Each and every certificate submitted by the :2: petitioner has been scrutinized by the C.A.T. and have been rejected by a reasoned order. These are factual findings recorded by the C.A.T. No perversity and/or illegality in those findings were pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The arguments proceeded on the ground that one opportunity may be given to the petitioner sympathetically. C.A.T. has exercised its discretion in the matter and has not granted discretion in favour of the petitioner. We do not find any sound reasons to interfere in the order in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is therefore rejected. (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.)(S. B. MHASE, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan