Karmaveer Shankarrao Kale Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana LTD. vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
Facts
The Petitioner, Karmaveer Shankarrao Kale Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & Ors., sought to amend their Writ Petition No. 13184 of 2019 to bring subsequent events on record. An order dated April 25, 2022, had permitted this amendment. However, a subsequent order led to the Registry refusing to allow the amendment. The Petitioner filed Interim Application No. 20482 of 2022 seeking permission to proceed with the amendment despite the Registry's objection. The Respondent authorities were represented by CGST and the State of Maharashtra.
Held
The Court held that the Registry should permit the amendment as per the order dated April 25, 2022. The reasoning was that the earlier order had already granted permission for the amendment. The subsequent order, which led to the Registry's refusal, was implicitly considered not to negate the prior permission. The ratio decidendi is that once a court grants permission for an amendment, subsequent administrative actions or interpretations by the Registry should not obstruct the implementation of that order. The operative direction was to allow the Interim Application and direct the Registry to permit the amendment. No issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to amend Writ Petition No. 13184 of 2019 to bring subsequent events on record, notwithstanding a subsequent order that caused the Registry to refuse the amendment? The Petitioner argued that an earlier order dated April 25, 2022, had explicitly permitted the amendment. They contended that the subsequent order should not override this permission and that the Registry's refusal was contrary to the court's earlier direction. The Petitioner relied on the principle that subsequent events can be brought on record to ensure the petition reflects the current factual matrix. The Respondent authorities (CGST and State of Maharashtra) did not record any specific arguments against the amendment in the provided text.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 37-A. IA 20482.22.doc JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 20482 OF 2022 with WRIT PETITION NO. 13184 OF 2019 Karmaveer Shankarrao Kale Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & Ors. … Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Ishaan Patkar with Ms. Chaitali Raul i/b. Alaksha legal for the Applicant in IA 20482/2022 Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra with Dhananjay B. Deshmukh for the Respondent (CGST) in WP 13184/2019 Ms. Shruti D. Vyas, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the Respondent - State
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE : 30 JANUARY 2023 P.C. :- The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that by order dated 25 April 2022 the Petitioner is permitted to amend the Petition for bringing subsequent events on record. The learned Counsel states that thereafter there is another order passed because of which the Registry is not permitting the amendment.
2 37-A. IA 20482.22.doc
Registry is directed to permit the amendment as per order dated 25 April 2022. 3. The Application is allowed.
Place the Petition o
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.