SURINDERNATHKAPOOR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 12/10/1987, this court made the following order:

(2.) In view what had been said in the order there was no occasion to interpret it to mean that this court had vacated the stay of further proceedings in appeal relating to the confirmation which were pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur. After the order was shown to him, the Commissioner made the following order:

(3.) We are of the view that the order of this court was clear and unambiguous. the net effect of that order was that the auction sale was set aside. There was no scope to interpret that order to mean that the "stay of the sale in operation" was no longer there and the Commissioner was free to deal with the appeal. We are surprised to notice that the Commissioner thought it appropriate to comment about the order of this court in the manner as appearing in the portion within quotation. We have a feeling that the concerned Commissioner has intentionally flouted the direction of this court and even after the sale was set aside by this court, he assumed jurisdiction to deal with the matter. This action of his amounts, prima facie, to contempt of this court. Notice shall issue to him to personally appear and show cause before this court on 7/03/1988 as to why he shall not be proceeded against under the Contempt of courts Act.