SEKAR REPORTER Blog

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN CMA No.65 of 2026  and  CMP N   o .635   of 2026 V.S.J.Dinakaran No.7, Thiruvankarasu Street Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. Appellant(s) Vs 1.  IRS, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) Room No. 104, Income Tax Investigation Wing

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON :  13.03.2026 DELIVERED ON :  02.04.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN CMA No.65...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON :  13.03.2026 DELIVERED ON :  02.04.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN CMA No.65...

The Madras High Court, by a Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, upheld the Appellate Tribunal’s condonation of a delay of 763 days in filing an appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority, holding that such discretionary orders are not to be interfered with unless perverse or arbitrary.  The case involved alleged benami transactions with V.K. Sasikala as beneficial owner and V.S.J. Dinakaran as benamidar in relation to the Spectrum Mall transaction in demonetised notes . The Court agreed with the Department’s submission that a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach must prevail and that procedural delay should not defeat substantial justice, particularly in matters involving public interest,    The appellant was represented by Senior Counsel Vijay Narayan for Adv Pranav Charan, and the DCIT  (BPU) was represented by Senior Standing Counsel Mrs.M. Sheela and Junior Standing Counsel H. Siddarth.

The Madras High Court, by a Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, upheld the Appellate Tribunal’s condonation of a delay of 763 days in filing an appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority, holding that such discretionary orders are not to be interfered with unless perverse or arbitrary. The case involved alleged benami transactions with V.K. Sasikala as beneficial owner and V.S.J. Dinakaran as benamidar in relation to the Spectrum Mall transaction in demonetised notes . The Court agreed with the Department’s submission that a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach must prevail and that procedural delay should not defeat substantial justice, particularly in matters involving public interest, The appellant was represented by Senior Counsel Vijay Narayan for Adv Pranav Charan, and the DCIT (BPU) was represented by Senior Standing Counsel Mrs.M. Sheela and Junior Standing Counsel H. Siddarth.

தலைமை நீதிபதி சுஷ்ருத் அரவிந்த் தர்மாதிகாரி மற்றும் நீதிபதி ஜி. அருள்முருகன் ஆகியோர் அடங்கிய சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்ற அமர்வு, தீர்ப்பளிக்கும் அதிகாரசபையின் உத்தரவுக்கு எதிராக மேல்முறையீடு செய்வதில் ஏற்பட்ட 763 நாட்கள் தாமதத்தை மேல்முறையீட்டுத் தீர்ப்பாயம் மன்னித்ததை உறுதி செய்தது. மேலும், அத்தகைய விருப்புரிமை உத்தரவுகள்...

The Madras High Court, by a Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, upheld the Appellate Tribunal’s condonation of a delay of 763 days in filing an appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority, holding that such discretionary orders are not to be interfered with unless perverse or arbitrary.  The case involved alleged benami transactions with V.K. Sasikala as beneficial owner and V.S.J. Dinakaran as benamidar in relation to the Spectrum Mall transaction in demonetised notes . The Court agreed with the Department’s submission that a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach must prevail and that procedural delay should not defeat substantial justice, particularly in matters involving public interest,    The appellant was represented by Senior Counsel Vijay Narayan for Adv Pranav Charan, and the DCIT  (BPU) was represented by Senior Standing Counsel Mrs.M. Sheela and Junior Standing Counsel H. Siddarth.

The Madras High Court, by a Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, upheld the Appellate Tribunal’s condonation of a delay of 763 days in filing an appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority, holding that such discretionary orders are not to be interfered with unless perverse or arbitrary. The case involved alleged benami transactions with V.K. Sasikala as beneficial owner and V.S.J. Dinakaran as benamidar in relation to the Spectrum Mall transaction in demonetised notes . The Court agreed with the Department’s submission that a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach must prevail and that procedural delay should not defeat substantial justice, particularly in matters involving public interest, The appellant was represented by Senior Counsel Vijay Narayan for Adv Pranav Charan, and the DCIT (BPU) was represented by Senior Standing Counsel Mrs.M. Sheela and Junior Standing Counsel H. Siddarth.

The Madras High Court, by a Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, upheld the Appellate Tribunal’s condonation of a delay of 763 days in filing an appeal against...

ஜி மோகனகிருஷ்ணன் சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்ற வழக்கறிஞர்கள் சங்கம்

ஜி மோகனகிருஷ்ணன் சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்ற வழக்கறிஞர்கள் சங்கம்

[02/04, 16:48] sekarreporter1: [02/04, 16:46] Mohanakrishnan President Mhaa: அரியலூர் மாவட்டம், சென்னை மாவட்டம், செங்கல்பட்டு மாவட்டம், கோயம்புத்தூர் மாவட்டம், கடலூர் மாவட்டம் போன்ற மாவட்டங்களின் அடிப்படையில் வாக்குச்சாவடி வாரியாக வாக்கு எண்ணிக்கை மேற்கொள்ளப்படுவது பல ஆண்டுகளாக நடைமுறையில் இருந்து வருகிறது. இந்த நிலையான மற்றும்...

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN W.P. Nos.31478 of 2024, 107, 127, 267, 777, 2208, 13778 and 19566

SEKAR REPORTER Customize New Edit Post Howdy, Sekar Reporter Skip to content SEKAR REPORTER     Uncategorized THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE...

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com