LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

3 SCC 151Reported decision1989#3033 most cited

What is LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT authority for?

Courts cannot substitute their own views for those of the Directorate of Enforcement when assessing whether actions were taken arbitrarily or without jurisdiction. The court must consider the substance of the matter, not just the form.

39

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ajanta Merchants Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement · Directorate of Enforcement · substance over form · jurisdiction · arbitrary action · assessment procedure · section 143(3) · section 250

Sections most often in play

Section 115JSection 115JASection 115JBSection 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 92f(v)section 80hhesection 35absection 92f(ii)section 80ia(1)section 80ia(5)section 10basection 115jasection 35asubstance over formsection 92(1)section 42

Judgments citing LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alok Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 726/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

…ty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent A decision does not lose its authority merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned...." Similarly, in the case of Kesho Ram & Co. v. Union of India [1989] 3 SCC 151, it was stated by the Supreme Court thus: "The binding effect of a decision of this Court (as indeed any superior court) does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with the reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision". The more we ponder upon…

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alok Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 725/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: MS. Deepa Hiray (Addl. CIT)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

…ty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent A decision does not lose its authority merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned...." Similarly, in the case of Kesho Ram & Co. v. Union of India [1989] 3 SCC 151, it was stated by the Supreme Court thus: "The binding effect of a decision of this Court (as indeed any superior court) does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with the reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision". The more we ponder upon…

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT(OSD) Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1621/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 1517 & 1621/Ahd/2019 Asst. Year 2008-09 The DCIT, Suzlon Energy Ltd. Circle-4(1)(1), 5, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad Vs Suzlon House, Nr. Shree Krishna Centre, Navrangpura Ahmedabad-380009, Gujarat, India PAN: AADCS0472N Suzlon Energy Ltd. The DCIT, 5, Shrimali Society, Circle-4(1)(1), Suzlon House, Nr.Shree Vs Ahmedabad Krishna Centre, Navrangpura Ahmedabad-380009, Gujarat, India PAN: AADCS0472N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represente…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1517/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 1517 & 1621/Ahd/2019 Asst. Year 2008-09 The DCIT, Suzlon Energy Ltd. Circle-4(1)(1), 5, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad Vs Suzlon House, Nr. Shree Krishna Centre, Navrangpura Ahmedabad-380009, Gujarat, India PAN: AADCS0472N Suzlon Energy Ltd. The DCIT, 5, Shrimali Society, Circle-4(1)(1), Suzlon House, Nr.Shree Vs Ahmedabad Krishna Centre, Navrangpura Ahmedabad-380009, Gujarat, India PAN: AADCS0472N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represente…

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1520/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

…do or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent . . . a decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned' . . ." Similarly in the case of Kesho Ram and Co. v. Union of India [1989] 3 SCC 151, it is stated by the Supreme Court thus (page 160): "The binding effect of a decision of this court does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision …” 25. A similar view is again taken by the Hon’b…

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1519/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

…do or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent . . . a decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned' . . ." Similarly in the case of Kesho Ram and Co. v. Union of India [1989] 3 SCC 151, it is stated by the Supreme Court thus (page 160): "The binding effect of a decision of this court does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision …” 25. A similar view is again taken by the Hon’b…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1463/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

…do or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent . . . a decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned' . . ." Similarly in the case of Kesho Ram and Co. v. Union of India [1989] 3 SCC 151, it is stated by the Supreme Court thus (page 160): "The binding effect of a decision of this court does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision …” 25. A similar view is again taken by the Hon’b…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1462/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

…do or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent . . . a decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned' . . ." Similarly in the case of Kesho Ram and Co. v. Union of India [1989] 3 SCC 151, it is stated by the Supreme Court thus (page 160): "The binding effect of a decision of this court does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision …” 25. A similar view is again taken by the Hon’b…

Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2876/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 28

…16 Page 32 of 105 compel reconsideration of a binding precedent A decision does not lose its authority merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned...." Similarly, in the case of Kesho Ram & Co. v. Union of India [1989] 3 SCC 151, it was stated by the Supreme Court thus: "The binding effect of a decision of this Court (as indeed any superior court) does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with the reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision". The more we ponder upon…

DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2344/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

…16 Page 32 of 105 compel reconsideration of a binding precedent A decision does not lose its authority merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned...." Similarly, in the case of Kesho Ram & Co. v. Union of India [1989] 3 SCC 151, it was stated by the Supreme Court thus: "The binding effect of a decision of this Court (as indeed any superior court) does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with the reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision". The more we ponder upon…

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 1645/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

…16 Page 32 of 105 compel reconsideration of a binding precedent A decision does not lose its authority merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned...." Similarly, in the case of Kesho Ram & Co. v. Union of India [1989] 3 SCC 151, it was stated by the Supreme Court thus: "The binding effect of a decision of this Court (as indeed any superior court) does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with the reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision". The more we ponder upon…

Air Works India Engineering P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) -55, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, in principle, and in the terms indicated above

ITA 643/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…ty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent A decision does not lose its authority merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned...." Similarly, in the case of Kesho Ram & Co. v. Union of India [1989] 3 SCC 151, it was stated by the Supreme Court thus: "The binding effect of a decision of this Court (as indeed any superior court) does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision". We see no reasons to take a…

Air Works India Engineering P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) -55, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, in principle, and in the terms indicated above

ITA 642/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…ty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent A decision does not lose its authority merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned...." Similarly, in the case of Kesho Ram & Co. v. Union of India [1989] 3 SCC 151, it was stated by the Supreme Court thus: "The binding effect of a decision of this Court (as indeed any superior court) does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision". We see no reasons to take a…

Siro Clinpharm P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 847/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Assessment year: 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C(3)

…annot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent.....A decision does not lose its authority merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned...." Similarly, in the case of Kesho Ram & Co. v. Union of India (1989) 3 SCC 151, it was stated by the Supreme Court thus: "The binding effect of a decision of this Court (as indeed any superior court) does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with the reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision”. The more we ponder upon…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 869/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2021AY 2012-13
Section 250Section 90Section 90nSection 91

…nnot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent.... A decision does not loose its authority merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned....". Similarly in the case of Kesho Ram & Co. v. Union of India [1989] 3 SCC 151, it was stated by the Supreme Court thus (page 160): "The binding effect of a decision of this Court does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision.” We are, therefore, not swayed by the arguments…

Mr Dyani Antony Paul vs. Union of India

WP/38642/2016HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…RA LTD. AND ANOTHER. iii) 2015 SCC ONLINE DEL 8658: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. iv) LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. v) (2013) 2 SCC 212: SUKHDEV SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA. vi) (2014) 3 SCC 151: VARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER. vii) (2008) 14 SCC 186: ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS. viii) (2015) 11 SCC 628: TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), JAMNAGAR. ix) (2009) 2 SCC 630: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER vs. VICE- CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS.…

Desaraju Venugopal vs. The Assistant Director

WP/8261/2017HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…RA LTD. AND ANOTHER. iii) 2015 SCC ONLINE DEL 8658: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. iv) LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. v) (2013) 2 SCC 212: SUKHDEV SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA. vi) (2014) 3 SCC 151: VARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER. vii) (2008) 14 SCC 186: ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS. viii) (2015) 11 SCC 628: TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), JAMNAGAR. ix) (2009) 2 SCC 630: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER vs. VICE- CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS.…

Sri S Thimmaraju vs. The Assistant Director

WP/42157/2016HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…RA LTD. AND ANOTHER. iii) 2015 SCC ONLINE DEL 8658: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. iv) LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. v) (2013) 2 SCC 212: SUKHDEV SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA. vi) (2014) 3 SCC 151: VARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER. vii) (2008) 14 SCC 186: ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS. viii) (2015) 11 SCC 628: TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), JAMNAGAR. ix) (2009) 2 SCC 630: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER vs. VICE- CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS.…

M/S. Jsw Steel Limited vs. Deputy Director

WP/19313/2016HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…RA LTD. AND ANOTHER. iii) 2015 SCC ONLINE DEL 8658: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. iv) LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. v) (2013) 2 SCC 212: SUKHDEV SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA. vi) (2014) 3 SCC 151: VARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER. vii) (2008) 14 SCC 186: ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS. viii) (2015) 11 SCC 628: TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), JAMNAGAR. ix) (2009) 2 SCC 630: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER vs. VICE- CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS.…

Shri C Devaraju vs. The Deputy Director

WP/48031/2017HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…RA LTD. AND ANOTHER. iii) 2015 SCC ONLINE DEL 8658: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. iv) LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. v) (2013) 2 SCC 212: SUKHDEV SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA. vi) (2014) 3 SCC 151: VARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER. vii) (2008) 14 SCC 186: ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS. viii) (2015) 11 SCC 628: TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), JAMNAGAR. ix) (2009) 2 SCC 630: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER vs. VICE- CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS.…