SASMITA INVESTMENTS LTD. vs APROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND 19 ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

app 298-14.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.298 OF 2014 IN SUIT NO.2094 OF 2006 Sasmita Investments Ltd. .. Appellant/Org. Plaintiff Versus Appropriate Authority & Ors. .. Respondents/Org. Defendants Mr. Harish Salve, Senior Counsel (through V.C.) a/w Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Counsel a/w Shanay Shah, Gunjan Mangla, Serena Jethmalani, Darshan Mehta & Aaditya Mapara i/b Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the Appellant. Adv. R. Venkatramani, the learned Attorney General of India a/w Mr. B. M. Chatterji, Senior Advocate a/w V. Digitally Vijayalakshmi, Shreyash Shah, Udayan Mukherjee, Raman signed by UTKARSH Yadav i/b. Nivedita Mullerpattan for the Respondent Nos. 1 UTKARSH KAKASAHEB KAKASAHEB BHALERAO BHALERAO Date: and 2. 2025.04.25 20:15:16 +0530 CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. RESERVED ON : MARCH 13, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : APRIL 25, 2025 Page 1 of 61 APRIL 25, 2025 app 298-14.docx JUDGMENT: [ PER B. P. COLABAWALLA, J. ] 1. The above appeal takes exception to the order dated 7 th April 2014 [for short the “impugned order”] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the suit filed by the Appellant [Original Plaintiff] on the ground that it was barred under the provisions of Section 269-UN and/or Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short the “IT Act, 1961”]. 2. Initially, by order dated 29th January 2013, the learned Single Judge framed three preliminary issues [to be decided in the above suit] under the provisions of the Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”]. For the sake of convenience, the issues framed by the learned Single Judge are reproduced hereunder:- 1. Whether the jurisdiction of the Ho