Punjab National Bank Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a.....v.k. jhanji, j. 1. at the time of motion hearing, counsel for the petitioner had contended that notice under rule 2 of the second schedule to the income-tax act, 1961, had only been issued but was never served on the defaulter. shri r.p. sawhney, senior standing counsel for the department, from the record had shown that notice under rule 2 had not only been issued but had actually been served on the defaulter. in view of this, under rule 16, a defaulter or his representative-in-interest was not competent to mortgage or create any charge or deal with any property belonging to him except with the permission of the tax recovery officer. rule 16 also provides that the civil court shall not issue any process against such property in execution of a decree for the payment of money. accordingly, i find that no case is made out for interference in this civil revision and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.