Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Anil Kumar Banerjee Vs. Union of India and ors

Anil Kumar Banerjee vs Union of India and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Mar 31, 2014
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1136207

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anil Kumar Banerjee

Respondent

Union of India and ors

Excerpt

order sheet g.a.no.902 of 2014 w.p.no.131 of 2014 in the high court at calcutta constitutional writ jurisdiction original side anil kumar banerjee versus union of india and ors before: the hon'ble justice harish tandon date : 31st march, 2014. for plaintiff/petitioner : mr.abhijeet ganguly, adv.mr.d.basu mullick, adv.for defendant/respondent : md.nizamuddin, adv.the court : this is an application at the instance of the assessee petitioner praying for modification of an order dated 3rd march, 2014 to the extent that the time to deposit further sum of rs.2 lacs should be extended. the petitioner’s application under section 220(6) of the income tax act, 1961 having kept pending, the authorities proceeded to pass an order of attachment. the court after considering the respective submissions directed the petitioner to pay a sum of rs.1 lac by march 4, 2014 and a further sum of rs.2 lacs within march 24, 2014 as a condition for an interim protection. the petitioner have deposited a sum of rs.1 lac but failed to deposit the further sum of rs.2 lacs within the time indicated thereunder. the ground taken in this application for not deposit of the said sum of rs.2 lacs is financial hardship. mr.nizamuddin learned advocate for the department submits that there is a total demand of nearly rs.20 lacs against the assessee petitioner and no further leniency or sympathy should be attributed to the petitioner, more particularly in view of the conduct having shown before the court. this court does not find that the ground shown for extension of time is at all convincing. the petitioner had been shown much leniency and the court took a sympathetic view while passing the order dated march 3, 2014. this court, therefore, does not find that the said order requires modification by way of extending time to make the deposit. the application is misconceived and devoid of any merit. the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. (harish tandon, j.) sbi

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET G.A.No.902 of 2014 W.P.No.131 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ANIL KUMAR BANERJEE Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 31st March, 2014.

For Plaintiff/Petitioner : Mr.Abhijeet Ganguly, Adv.Mr.D.Basu Mullick, Adv.For Defendant/Respondent : Md.Nizamuddin, Adv.The Court : This is an application at the instance of the assessee petitioner praying for modification of an order dated 3rd March, 2014 to the extent that the time to deposit further sum of Rs.2 lacs should be extended.

The petitioner’s application under section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 having kept pending, the authorities proceeded to pass an order of attachment.

The Court after considering the respective submissions directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1 lac by March 4, 2014 and a further sum of Rs.2 lacs within March 24, 2014 as a condition for an interim protection.

The petitioner have deposited a sum of Rs.1 lac but failed to deposit the further sum of Rs.2 lacs within the time indicated thereunder.

The ground taken in this application for not deposit of the said sum of Rs.2 lacs is financial hardship.

Mr.Nizamuddin learned advocate for the department submits that there is a total demand of nearly Rs.20 lacs against the assessee petitioner and no further leniency or sympathy should be attributed to the petitioner, more particularly in view of the conduct having shown before the Court.

This Court does not find that the ground shown for extension of time is at all convincing.

The petitioner had been shown much leniency and the Court took a sympathetic view while passing the order dated March 3, 2014.

This Court, therefore, does not find that the said order requires modification by way of extending time to make the deposit.

The application is misconceived and devoid of any merit.

The same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.

(HARISH TANDON, J.) sbi

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial