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.)
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.