Case Law › High Court › Wp(C)/10056/2009 Of M.surendran v. Commi...

Wp(C)/10056/2009 Of M.surendran v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 27 Mar 2009 In favour of: Unclear

Forum / Bench

High Court · highcourtofkerala

Parties

Date of order

27 Mar 2009

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Wp(C)/10056/2009 Of M.surendran v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.

Decision: I feel that a decision can be ordered to be taken on Ext.P10.Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing the 1[st] respondent toconsider and take a decision on Ext.P10 in accordance with law withinone month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10056 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.SURENDRAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT `SUBINA', 4/4799, A.G.ROAD, CALICUT-32. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANAMCHIRA, CALICUT. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE II, CALICUT. 3. THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, RANGE I, CALICUT. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, BRANCH III, CALICUT. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, IT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.3.2009 , THE COURT ON 27/03/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 10056 OF 2009 B ````````````````````````````````````````````````````Dated this the 27[th] day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 and seeks a direction toconsider and pass orders on Ext.P10. The petitioner is working as aDevelopment Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Therewas a litigation which ultimately culminated against the petitioner. Ofcourse, it is stated to be at the instance of the association of which thepetitioner was a member. Ext.P1 is the interim order passed by thiscourt. The amount was deducted but put kept in the suspense account.Now there is a demand for interest. Petitioner filed Ext.P10. 2.I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedstanding counsel. I feel that a decision can be ordered to be taken on Ext.P10.Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing the 1[st] respondent toconsider and take a decision on Ext.P10 in accordance with law withinone month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till sucha decision is taken, proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 will be kept inabeyance. I leave open all the contentions of the petitioner. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 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.