✦ Supreme Court of India · 14 Sep 1994

KRISHNA KUMAR RAWAT & Ors. v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

#12. Division Bench of High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the prospective buyers and partly allowed the appeal filed by the vendor. This Court finds that while passing the aforesaid order, the provisions contained in Section 269UG (4) of the Act were not taken into consideration by the Division Bench, which inter alia provide as to how the issue in relation to amount of A B C D E F G H KRISHNA KUMAR RAWAT & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 337 consideration is finally required to be dealt with by the appropriate authority in a case of this nature. [Para 3, 4] [351-F; 352-A-B] A

#13. Therefore, this Court is of the view that instead of issuing the aforementioned impugned directions in relation to the disbursement of the amount of FDR, the High Court should have left the matter to be decided by the appropriate authority as required under Section 269UG (4) of the Act. [Para 6] [352-E] C.B Gautam v. Union of India and Others (1993) 1 SCC 78 : [1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 12 – relied on.

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Income Tax Act, 1961 — ss. 269UC, 269UD(1); Finance Act, 1986; Constitution of India — art. 136.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Supreme Court of India, on 14 Sep 1994. The bench was ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, DINESH MAHESHWARI.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Supreme Court of India or eCourts case status (search case no. CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 9800-9801 of 2010). ← Search more judgments