Usha (India) Ltd. v. Union Of India & ORS.

$~32-35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10008/2016 & CM APPL. 32707/2020 (Stay) USHA (INDIA) LTD.

.....Petitioner Through:

None versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Vivek Goyal & Mr. Gokul Sharma, Advs. for Resp./ UOI.

Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC with Mr. Gibran Naushad & Ms.

Sakashi Shairwal, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 10010/2016 GORDON HERBERT (INDIA) LTD.

.....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Adv with Mr. Rupendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Mr.

Ravinder Mohan Manchanda, Ms. Jasleen & Ms. Jyoti Sejwal, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Vivek Goyal & Mr. Gokul Sharma, Advs. for Resp./ UOI.

Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC with Mr. Gibran Naushad & Ms.

Sakashi Shairwal, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 10085/2016 BURR BROWN (INDIA) LTD.

.....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Adv with Mr. Rupendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Mr.

Ravinder Mohan Manchanda, Ms. Jasleen & Ms. Jyoti The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Sejwal, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Vivek Goyal & Mr. Gokul Sharma, Advs. for Resp./ UOI.

Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC with Mr. Gibran Naushad & Ms.

Sakashi Shairwal, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 10086/2016 USHA ISPAT LTD.

.....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Adv with Mr. Rupendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Mr.

Ravinder Mohan Manchanda, Ms. Jasleen & Ms. Jyoti Sejwal, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Vivek Goyal & Mr. Gokul Sharma, Advs. for Resp./ UOI.

Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC with Mr. Gibran Naushad & Ms.

Sakashi Shairwal, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

O R D E R

% 23.07.2024 1.

These writ petitions impugn the order dated 28 July 2016 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission ["Commission"] dismissing applications made by the writ petitioners. 2.

As would be evident from a perusal of paragraph 8 and which sets out in some details the proceedings which were drawn by the Commission with reference to Section 245D of the Income Tax Act, The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

1961 ["Act"] despite multiple notices issued to the writ petitioners here, none of them chose to appear or attend to the proceedings. 3.

Apart from the above, the Commission has also taken note of the disclosures which were made in the Rule 9 Report. Although before us it was sought to be contended that a copy of the said Report was not provided to the applicants, we note that since there was an admitted and undisputed failure to attend to the proceedings, the Commission rightly proceeded to dismiss the applications. 4.

We find no merit in these writ petitions. They, consequently, fail and shall stand dismissed.

YASHWANT VARMA, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J JULY 23, 2024/kk The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.