Rohitasava Chand v. CIT

306 ITR 242High Court2008#1944 most cited

What is Rohitasava Chand v. CIT authority for?

Receipt of a non-compete fee, even if it does not alter the assessee's business structure, impairs the carrying on of their activity, constituting a loss of a source of income.

59

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Rohitasava Chand v. CIT · non-compete fee · capital receipt · loss of source of income · impairment of business · section 28(va) · section 55 · taxability of non-compete fee · characterisation of receipt · rule of consistency · 306 ITR 242

Also reported as

171 Taxmann 147

Sections most often in play

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 271HSection 154Section 194IASection 201(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 28(va)section 295non-compete feesection 55(2)carry forward of lossesscheme of arrangementsection 55rule of consistencysection 2(14)business expediencysection 260revenue expenditure

Judgments citing Rohitasava Chand v. CIT

Taj Infraheights Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO TDS Ward, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4575/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 271Section 271H

…considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs CIT (1992] 60 taxman 248(SC) and has held that the rule of consistency should not create anomaly. She also relied on the following decisions:- (i) Rohitasava Chand [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) 3 (ii) Anup Sharma vs Addl CIT, ITA No.l61/CHD/2012, order clt.26.08.2014 of ITAT, Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs DCIT [2014] 44 taxraann.com 431 (ITAT, Agra) (iv) K K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) (v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) 5. The ld. DR drew the attention of the Bench t…

Franchise India Brands Ltd., New Delhi vs. CPC- TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1274/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

…considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs CIT (1992] 60 taxman 248(SC) and has held that the rule of consistency should not create anomaly. She also relied on the following decisions:- (i) Rohitasava Chand [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) (ii) Anup Sharma vs Addl CIT, ITA No.l61/CHD/2012, order clt.26.08.2014 of ITAT, Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs DCIT [2014] 44 taxraann.com 431 (ITAT, Agra) (iv) K K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) (v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) 6. The ld. DR drew the attention of the Bench to…

Govt. Girls Sr. Secondary School, Agroha, Hisar vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5818/DEL/2018[2014-15 (Q 1)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 271Section 271H

…HC considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs CIT (1992] 60 taxman 248(SC) and has held that the rule of consistency should not create anomaly. She also relied on the following decisions:- (i) Rohitasava Chand [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) (ii) Anup Sharma vs Addl CIT, ITA No.l61/CHD/2012, order clt.26.08.2014 of ITAT, Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs DCIT [2014] 44 taxraann.com 431 (ITAT, Agra) (iv) K K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) (v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) 5. The ld. DR drew the attention of the Bench to the Me…

Rajindra Gagan Wine Enterprises, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward- 3, Hisar

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5584/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sandeep Mehtani, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

…HC considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs CIT (1992] 60 taxman 248(SC) and has held that the rule of consistency should not create anomaly. She also relied on the following decisions:- (i) Rohitasava Chand [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) (ii) Anup Sharma vs Addl CIT, ITA No.l61/CHD/2012, order clt.26.08.2014 of ITAT, Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs DCIT [2014] 44 taxraann.com 431 (ITAT, Agra) (iv) K K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) (v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) ITA Nos.5571 to 5573/Del/2018 6. The ld. DR drew the at…

Rajender Singh, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward- 3, Hisar

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5571/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sandeep Mehtani, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

…HC considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs CIT (1992] 60 taxman 248(SC) and has held that the rule of consistency should not create anomaly. She also relied on the following decisions:- (i) Rohitasava Chand [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) (ii) Anup Sharma vs Addl CIT, ITA No.l61/CHD/2012, order clt.26.08.2014 of ITAT, Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs DCIT [2014] 44 taxraann.com 431 (ITAT, Agra) (iv) K K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) (v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) ITA Nos.5571 to 5573/Del/2018 6. The ld. DR drew the at…

Ebnoy Homes Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 74(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1101/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234Section 234ESection 271Section 271H

…considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs CIT (1992] 60 taxman 248(SC) and has held that the rule of consistency should not create anomaly. She also relied on the following decisions:- (i) Rohitasava Chand [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) (ii) Anup Sharma vs Addl CIT, ITA No.l61/CHD/2012, order clt.26.08.2014 of ITAT, Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs DCIT [2014] 44 taxraann.com 431 (ITAT, Agra) (iv) K K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) (v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) 4. The ld. DR drew the attention of the Bench to…

Additional Digp, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, TDS, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7559/DEL/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234Section 234ESection 271Section 271H

…considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs CIT (1992] 60 taxman 248(SC) and has held that the rule of consistency should not create anomaly. She also relied on the following decisions:- (i) Rohitasava Chand [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) (ii) Anup Sharma vs Addl CIT, ITA No.l61/CHD/2012, order clt.26.08.2014 of ITAT, Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs DCIT [2014] 44 taxraann.com 431 (ITAT, Agra) (iv) K K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) (v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) 5. The ld. DR drew the attention of the Bench to…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi vs. M/S. Mitsu Limited, Daman

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3510/AHD/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

Section 143

…relied in the case of CIT v. Mrs. TARA SINHA [I.T.A.No. 154/2005 dated 11.08.2017 of Hon`ble Delhi High Court] wherein also following the decision of Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 332 ITR 602 (SC)/ [2011] 198 Taxman 78 (SC) and Rohitasava Chand v. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) the issue was allowed in favour of the assessee. Since the facts of the present case, are identical as the assessee has received non-compete fees for non- compete obligation resulting in loss of source of income and further more Page 15 of 83 Mitsu Ltd. v. ACIT- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,CO-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/AHD/2006/A.Y.02-03,0…

M/S. Mitsu Private Limited, Vapi vs. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1000/AHD/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

Section 143

…relied in the case of CIT v. Mrs. TARA SINHA [I.T.A.No. 154/2005 dated 11.08.2017 of Hon`ble Delhi High Court] wherein also following the decision of Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 332 ITR 602 (SC)/ [2011] 198 Taxman 78 (SC) and Rohitasava Chand v. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) the issue was allowed in favour of the assessee. Since the facts of the present case, are identical as the assessee has received non-compete fees for non- compete obligation resulting in loss of source of income and further more Page 15 of 83 Mitsu Ltd. v. ACIT- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,CO-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/AHD/2006/A.Y.02-03,0…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. Tara Sinha

The appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs

ITA/154/2005HC Delhi11 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 28

…isleri Sales Ltd. 377 ITR 144 (Bom) (hereafter, ‘Bisleri Sales’), 3. Khanna and Annadhanam v. CIT 351 ITR 110 (hereafter, ‘Khanna and Annandhanam’), 4. Guffic Chemical Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 32 ITR 602 (SC) (hereafter, ‘Guffic Chemical’), 5. Rohitasava Chand v. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del) (hereafter, ‘Rohitasava Chand’), 6. CIT v. A.S. Wardekar 283 ITR 432 (Cal) (hereafter, ‘A.S. Wardekar), 7. CIT v. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal) (hereafter, ‘Saroj Kumar Poddar’), 8. CIT v. Saraswati Publicity (1981) 132 ITR 207 (Mad) (hereafter, ‘Saraswati Publicity’), 9. Lachhman Das v. CIT 124 ITR 706 (Del) (hereafter, ‘Lachhman Da…

M/S. Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 789/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 43(1)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

…t the tax authorities to adopt varied interpretations, to suit individual assesses, subjective to their convenience, - a result at once debilitating and destructive of the rule of law. A previous Division Bench of this Court, in Rohitasava Chand v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 242/ 171 Taxman 147 had held that the rule of consistency cannot be of inflexible application. Hon'ble Apex Court in Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120/22 Taxman 49 (SC) has held that to perpetuate an error is no heroism and to rectify it is the compulsion of the judicial conscience. In case of CIT v. Excel Industrie…

Honey Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA - 163 / 2002HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…the tax authorities to adopt varied interpretations, to suit individual assessees, subjective to their convenience—a result at once debilitating and destructive of the rule of law. A previous Division Bench of this court, in Rohitasava Chand v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) had held that the rule of consistency cannot be of inflexible application.” 22. As explained earlier, the language of Rule 9B is unambiguous and the Assessee cannot be permitted to claim a carry forward of the cost of distribution rights, which is in variance with the computation as provided in Rule 9B of the Rules. 23. In view…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Honey Enterprises

ITA - 537 / 2004HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…the tax authorities to adopt varied interpretations, to suit individual assessees, subjective to their convenience—a result at once debilitating and destructive of the rule of law. A previous Division Bench of this court, in Rohitasava Chand v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) had held that the rule of consistency cannot be of inflexible application.” 22. As explained earlier, the language of Rule 9B is unambiguous and the Assessee cannot be permitted to claim a carry forward of the cost of distribution rights, which is in variance with the computation as provided in Rule 9B of the Rules. 23. In view…

Commr. of Income Tax vs. Honey Enterprises

ITA - 260 / 2002HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…the tax authorities to adopt varied interpretations, to suit individual assessees, subjective to their convenience—a result at once debilitating and destructive of the rule of law. A previous Division Bench of this court, in Rohitasava Chand v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) had held that the rule of consistency cannot be of inflexible application.” 22. As explained earlier, the language of Rule 9B is unambiguous and the Assessee cannot be permitted to claim a carry forward of the cost of distribution rights, which is in variance with the computation as provided in Rule 9B of the Rules. 23. In view…

Honey Enterprises

ITA/537/2004HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…the tax authorities to adopt varied interpretations, to suit individual assessees, subjective to their convenience—a result at once debilitating and destructive of the rule of law. A previous Division Bench of this court, in Rohitasava Chand v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) had held that the rule of consistency cannot be of inflexible application.” 22. As explained earlier, the language of Rule 9B is unambiguous and the Assessee cannot be permitted to claim a carry forward of the cost of distribution rights, which is in variance with the computation as provided in Rule 9B of the Rules. 23. In view…

Honey Enterprises

ITA/377/2004HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…the tax authorities to adopt varied interpretations, to suit individual assessees, subjective to their convenience—a result at once debilitating and destructive of the rule of law. A previous Division Bench of this court, in Rohitasava Chand v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) had held that the rule of consistency cannot be of inflexible application.” 22. As explained earlier, the language of Rule 9B is unambiguous and the Assessee cannot be permitted to claim a carry forward of the cost of distribution rights, which is in variance with the computation as provided in Rule 9B of the Rules. 23. In view…

Honey Enterprises

ITA/260/2002HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…the tax authorities to adopt varied interpretations, to suit individual assessees, subjective to their convenience—a result at once debilitating and destructive of the rule of law. A previous Division Bench of this court, in Rohitasava Chand v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) had held that the rule of consistency cannot be of inflexible application.” 22. As explained earlier, the language of Rule 9B is unambiguous and the Assessee cannot be permitted to claim a carry forward of the cost of distribution rights, which is in variance with the computation as provided in Rule 9B of the Rules. 23. In view…

Honey Enterprises

ITA/163/2002HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…the tax authorities to adopt varied interpretations, to suit individual assessees, subjective to their convenience—a result at once debilitating and destructive of the rule of law. A previous Division Bench of this court, in Rohitasava Chand v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 242 (Delhi) had held that the rule of consistency cannot be of inflexible application.” 22. As explained earlier, the language of Rule 9B is unambiguous and the Assessee cannot be permitted to claim a carry forward of the cost of distribution rights, which is in variance with the computation as provided in Rule 9B of the Rules. 23. In view…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ashok Mehra

ITA/801/2009HC Delhi25 Oct 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

…ITA NO. 801 of 2009 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No.801 of 2009 % Decision Delivered On: 25th October, 2010. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . Appellant through : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate. VERSUS ASHOK MEHRA . . .Respondent through: Mr. Sandeep Sapra, Advocate. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment?…