| Case ID |
43adae6d-f5bd-4ab7-9393-a454e04eabeb |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner failed to request interest on the seized amount when filing the initial petition. The petitioner, who sought a refund for the amount seized from his wife, Smt. Hasmat Kaur, later attempted to amend the petition to include a request for interest. However, since the principal amount had already been refunded, the court ruled that it could not issue a writ of mandamus to compel payment of interest. The court advised the petitioner that if the law allowed, he could approach the Commissioner of Income-tax for interest payment. |
| Summary |
In this significant case, the Allahabad High Court addressed the issue of maintainability of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought a direction for the refund of an amount seized from his wife. Initially, he did not request any interest on the seized amount. Later, he sought to amend the petition to include interest claims. The court clarified that as the principal amount had already been refunded, the amendment to seek interest could not be granted. This ruling underscores the importance of clearly stating all claims in legal petitions and the implications of procedural requirements in writ proceedings. Keywords: writ petition, refund, interest, maintainability, Article 226, seized amount, amendment, legal procedure. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
K.C. Agarwal, Actg. C.J.,
R.K. Gulati, J.
|
| Lawyers |
A.D. Prabhakar
|
| Petitioners |
Raghunath Singh
|
| Respondents |
Union of India
|
| Citations |
1990 SLD 1752,
(1990) 182 ITR 234
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Article 226 of Constitution of India
|
| Sections |
Not available
|