The DyCIT., Ahmedabad Circle-1,, Ahmedabad v. Arvind Fashion Ltd.,, Ahmedabad

ITA 2334/AHD/2007 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 233420514 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AABCA2402L
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2334/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant The DyCIT., Ahmedabad Circle-1,, Ahmedabad
Respondent Arvind Fashion Ltd.,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 26-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 26-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 26-04-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 01-06-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 26.04.10 DRAFTED ON: 26.04.1 0 ITA NO.2334/AHD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-2005 DCIT CIRCLE-1 3 RD FLOOR JITENDRA CHAMBERS R.B.I.LANE ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD. VS. ARVIND FASHIONS LTD. ARVIND MILLS PREMISES NARODA ROAD AHMEDABAD. PAN/GIR NO. : AABCA 2402 L (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI C.K.MISHRA D.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI P.M.MEHTA A.R. O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-V AHMEDABAD DATED 28.03.2007. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE RELATES TO DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 1/4 TH OF ROYALTY EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.68 48 387/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R BY TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION PAID A SUM OF RS.2 73 93 549/- AS ROY ALTY TO H.D. LEE & WRANGLER APPAREL CORP. TOWARDS USE OF TRADE MARK AN D KNOW-HOW. - 2 - IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR A.Y.2001-02 THE CLAIM OF ROYALTY WAS PARTLY DISALLOWED TREATING L/4 TH OF TOTAL EXPENSE AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE & DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWED ON THE AMOUNT HELD AS CAPI TAL EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS THEREFORE ASK ED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW-CAUSE AS TO WHY CLAIM OF ROYALTY SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED FOLLOWING THE ORDER FOR A.Y.2001-02. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER FOR A.Y.2001-02 IS REVERSED AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A)-V IN ORDER DATED 7. 1.2005 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-V/ACIT CIR.1/75/2004-05. THE LEAR NED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE MORE OR LESS SIMILAR TO THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y.2001 -02. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BEFORE THE L EARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI - A BENCH'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOODYEAR INDIA LTD (73 ITD 189) IS A GO OD CASE LAW AND HAD BEEN DELIVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE EVEN AFTER CON SIDERING THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN SWITCHGEAR LI MITED (232 ITR 359). THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM ALSO RELIED ON CBDT CIRCULAR LETTER F.NO.10/69/61-IT(A) DATED 4 TH SEPTEMBER 1962 AND SUBMITTED THAT ITS CASE SATISFY THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN CIRCULAR VIZ. PAYMENTS MADE REPRESENT CONSIDERATION FOR MERE USER OF TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE & INFORMATION THE USER OF TRADE MARKS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT REPORTE D IN 232 ITR 156 DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ARVIN D MILLS LIMITED REPORTED IN 254 ITR. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FURTHER R ELIED ON ITAT CHANDIGRAH BENCH IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT V. SWARAJ E NGINES LTD (124 TAXMAN 118) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ROYALTY P AYMENT COULD NOT BE TERMED AS PAYMENT FOR KNOW-HOW AND THE SAME WAS ALL OWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHEN IT IS RELATED TO SALES. - 3 - IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ACCEPTED THAT T HE DECISION OF ITAT IN 73 ITD 189 IS RENDERED AFTER CONSIDERING THE CAS E OF SOUTHERN SWITCHGEAR AND ALSO CIT(A) HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CON TENTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND REVERSED THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS R EGARD IN A.Y. 2001-02. HOWEVER THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THA T IN HIS OPINION THAT AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS GETTING ENDURING BENEFIT FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN SWITCHGEAR 1/4 TH OF THE TOTAL PAYMENT SHALL BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. MOREOVER THE DEPAR TMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SAME AND IT HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY PREFERRING A N APPEAL BEFORE ITAT. HENCE TO KEEP THE MATTER ALIVE THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE COMPANY IS REJECTED. PURSUANT TO ABOVE DISCUSSION THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED L/4 TH CLAIM OF ROYALTY ON THE ITEMS WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS.68 48 387/-. HOWEVER HE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY @ 25% ON THIS AMOUNT WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS.17 12 0 97/- MAKING THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE AT RS.51 36 290/- 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE CAREFULLY. I FIND T HAT THE SAME ISSUE AROSE BEFORE CIT(A) IN AY 2001-02 AND VIDE PARA 2.3 OF HIS ORDER DATED 7/1/2005 CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT CLAIM WAS ALLOW ABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. AS ISSUE INVOLVED IS THE SAME FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS DE LETED. 5. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE FILED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR AY 2001-2002 PASSED IN THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE WHEREIN V IDE ORDER DATED 18.12.2009 THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DELETING THE DI SALLOWANCE MADE OUT OF ROYALTY EXPENSES AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE C ONTENDED THAT - 4 - FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AGREED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABL E ON RECORD. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 1/4 TH EXPENSES CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF ROYALTY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.2 73 93 549/- TOWARDS US E OF TRADEMARK AND KNOW-HOW TO H.D. LEE & WRANGLER APPARENT CORP. THUS THE DISALLOWANCE WAS WORKED OUT BY THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER AT RS.68 48 387/- WHICH WAS TREATED BY HIM AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 25 % ON THIS AMOUNT AND THEREBY MADE A NET DISALLOWANCE OF RS.51 36 290 /-. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 01-2002 BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS DELETED IN APPE AL BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). ON FURTHER APP EAL BY THE REVENUE THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENU E. WHILE DOING SO THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER:- 19. WE CONSIDERED THE MATTER IN DETAIL. A SALIENT FEATURE OF THE TECHNICAL AGREEMENT WAS THAT THE ROYALTY PAYMENT WA S TO BE WORKED OUT AS PERCENTAGE OF SALES TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY. THE PERIOD OF AGREEMENT WAS FOUR YEARS; ALL THE TECHNIC AL DETAILS AND MATERIALS HAVE TO BE RETURNED TO THE FOREIGN COLLAB ORATORS AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS; THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERS ALL R IGHTS OF EVERY SORT ARISING OUT OF THE TECHNICAL AGREEMENT ON EXPIRY OF THE AGREEMENT PERIOD AND ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT EITHER IN THE MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY OR PROCESS TECHNIQUES OR O THER TECHNICAL ASPECTS OR ANY MARKETING FACILITIES LIKE TRADE MARK PATENT ETC. - 5 - 20. WHEN THE NATURE OF THE PAYMENT WAS EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE PARAMETERS OF THE TECHNICAL AGREEMENT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACQUIRED ANY EXPLOITABLE ASSET IN THE NATURE OF TECHNICAL KNOW OR MANUFACTURING PROCEDURE OR BY WAY OF PATENT OR TRADE MARK. AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF THE AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO RIGHT TO RELY ON THE TECHNICAL RESO URCES AVAILABLE WITH THE FOREIGN COLLABORATORS. IF AT ALL THE ASS ESSEE-COMPANY HAS ACQUIRED ANY EXPERTISE OR KNOWLEDGE IN ITS BUSINESS PROCESS AS A RESULT OF THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE AGREEMENT THAT KNO WLEDGE/EXPERTISE AMOUNTS ONLY TO A WORKING EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT A MOUNT TO AN ASSET OR EXPERTISE CAPABLE OF FUTURE EXPLOITATION. IT IS VERY PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY RELATED TO THE TURNOVER ACHIEVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM YEAR TO YEAR. IT DIRECTLY BRI NGS HOME THE POINT THAT THE SERVICES OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE IN THE NATURE OF FACILITIES FOR RUNNING THE BUSINESS IN THE ORDINARY COURSE AND NOT IN FOR OBTAINING ANY FUNDAMENTAL TECHNICAL FACILITY. THE FACILITY OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE TECHNICAL AGREEME NT WAS IN FACT TO HELP THE ASSESSEE TO RUN ITS BUSINESS IN A MORE COM PETENT MANNER. THEREFORE IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT THE ROYALTY PAID B Y THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR RUNNING A N EXISTING BUSINESS IN A BETTER WAY. 21. IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO AGREE WITH THE VIEW OF THE REVENUE THAT BY VIRTUE O F UTILIZING THE FACILITY AS PER THE TECHNICAL AGREEMENT FOR A PERIO D OF FOUR YEARS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ACQUIRED A BENEFIT OF ENDURING NATURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BUILT UP ANY TECHNICAL BASE OR ACQ UIRED ANY INTANGIBLE ASSET OF PERPETUAL USE. THEREFORE WE A GREE WITH THE CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR TREATING 1/4 TH OF THE ROYALTY PAYMENT AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE SAID PARTIAL DISALLOWANCE. 22. ANOTHER ASPECT TO BE CONSIDERED IN THIS CONTEXT IS THAT THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE NATURE OF ROYALTY PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS EXAMINE D BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 IN A DETAILED MANNER AND ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENT WAS IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THIS FINDING ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR THE EARLI ER ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 HAS SINCE THEN BEEN FOLLOWED IN ALL THE SUB SEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THEREFORE WITHOUT ANY CHANGE I N THE FACTS OF THE CASE THERE WAS NO PROVOCATION TO TAKE A DIFFER ENT VIEW FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS TURNED DOWN BY THE ASSESSING A UTHORITY STATING THAT RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO TAX MATTERS. - 6 - 23. THERE IS NO DOUBT REGARDING THE RULE OF RES JUDICATA IN TAX MATTERS. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF WILL Y SLANY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 1995 (2) SCR 1140 HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO SUCH FACT AS A JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE ON THE FACTS THAT COUNSEL AND EVEN JUDGES ARE SOMETIMES PRONE TO ARGUE AND TO ACT AS IF THERE WERE. THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KALPATTA ESTATE LTD. 211 ITR 635 HAS HELD THAT RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO TAX ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DIFFERE NT VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE IN THE ASSESSMENTS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS IF MATERIALS ARE AVAILABLE OR MORE CLOSURE AND MORE IN TELLIGENT ANALYSIS IS MADE. THEREFORE THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE RUL E OF RES JUDICATA AS SUCH HAS NO APPLICATION TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDIN GS. WE AGREE WITH THE AO ON THAT ESTABLISHED PROPOSITION OF LAW. 24. BUT IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO REMEMBER THAT NON-A PPLICABILITY OF THE RULE OF RES JUDICATA IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS SHOULD NOT UNNECESSARILY DISTURB THE ESTABLISHED RULE OF CONSI STENCY TO BE FOLLOWED ON FACTUAL MATTERS REPEATED FROM ASSESSMEN T YEAR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR. 25. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF I NDIA AND ANR. VS. KAUMUDINI NARAYAN DALAL AND ANOTHER HAS CO NSIDERED THE RELEVANCE OF THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY IN MATTERS OF INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT. THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN THE SAID CASE THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN TO REVENUE TO ACCEPT THE EARLIER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ONE ASSESSEE AND CHALLENGE ITS CORRECTNESS WITHOUT JUST CAUSE IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEE. AGAIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NARENDRA DOSHI 254 ITR 606 HAS UPH ELD THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY WHILE DECIDING THE TAX MATTERS. THE VIEW WAS AGAIN REITERATED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. NIRMA PVT. LTD. 257 ITR 57. 26. WHEN WE ARE IN BETWEEN THE RULE OF RES JUDICATA AND RULE OF CONSISTENCY IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY IS FOLLOWED FAIRLY AND AT THE SAME TIME THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY IS BLINDLY APPLIED IN BLATANT VIOLATION OF RULE OF RES JUDICATA . WE HAVE TO READ DOWN THE RULE IN SUCH A MANNER TH AT THE FINDINGS ARE NOT DISTURBED UNLESS THERE ARE DEMANDI NG CIRCUMSTANCES AND EARLIER DECISIONS ARE NOT THRUST UPON WITHOUT E XAMINING THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ISSUE OF PAYMENT OF ROYALTY HAS BEEN SCRUTINIZE D AND EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSME NT YEAR 1995-96 IN A DETAILED MANNER AND HAD COME TO A FINDING THAT TH E PAYMENT WAS IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THIS FINDING ARRIVED AT AFTER - 7 - SUFFICIENT EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE INC LUDING THE TERMS OF TECHNICAL AGREEMENT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE REVENU E CONSISTENTLY FOR THE SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS AS WELL. THE P OSITION BEING SO IF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW ON THE SUBJECT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002 IT IS A LWAYS NECESSARY THAT THE AO SHOULD DEMONSTRATE THE COMPELLING CIRCU MSTANCES OF FACTS WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE DEVIATION FROM THE E ARLIER FINDING. THE AO SHOULD HAVE POINTED OUT THAT CERTAIN PERTINE NT CLAUSES IN THE AGREEMENT WERE OVERLOOKED BY THE EARLIER AUTHORITIE S OR SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS HAVE MADE OUT A CASE AGAINST FOLLOWING THE EARLIER DECISION. A MERE REVIEW IS NOT POSSIBLE. THE RE-R EADING OF TECHNICAL AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTANDING THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT IN THE MANNER OF OPINION ARE NOT PROVOCATIVE REASONS T O DEVIATE FROM THE EARLIER FINDING AND TO CUT OFF THE CHORD OF CON SISTENCY RUNNING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT FOR SO MANY YEARS. THE CHOR D OF CONSISTENCY CAN BE CUT OFF ONLY IF THE FACTS ARE SU BSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS CAPABLE OF LEADI NG TO A DIFFERENT FINDING. 27. IT IS OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING AU THORITY HAS ERRED IN OVERLOOKING THE FINDING ARRIVED AT ON THE SAME SUBJECT FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AS THERE ARE NO DEMAND ING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR A DEVIATION. ON THIS GROUND ITSE LF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS TO BE HELD UNLAWFUL. 8. FACTS BEING IDENTICAL AND AS THE LEARNED DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT SHOW ANY GOOD REASON TO NO T TO FOLLOW THE ABOVE QUOTED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIN G THE SAME WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE H EARING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES ON 26 TH DAY OF APRIL 2010. SD/- SD/- ( MAHAVIR SINGH) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF APRIL 2010 - 8 - PARAS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-V AHMEDABAD. 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT AHMEDABAD DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 26.04.2010 -------------- ---- 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 26.04.2010 ---- --------------- 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 26.04.2010 ---------- --------- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED 26.04.2010 --------- ---------- JM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S 27.04.2010 -------- ------------ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON ---------------- -- ------------------ 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 27.04.2010 ------ -------------- 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ---------------- -------------------- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ---------------- - --------------------