By TIOL News Service

BANGALORE, SEPT 25, 2013: THE primary argument of the learned C.A. is that even after remand by the Tribunal in first round of litigation, learned authority has not done justice to the appellant.

The Tribunal has again remanded the matter with the observations that the Tribunal expects a reasoned speaking and fair order to be passed following due process of justice according to the guidelines of the Supreme Court laid down in para 7 of judgment in case of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat Vs. Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd. - 2010-TIOL-37-SC-IT-LB. The guidelines are:

(a)  It should always be kept in mind that nothing should be written in the judgment/order, which may not be germane to the facts of the case; It should have a co-relation with the applicable law and facts. The ratio decidendi should be clearly spelt out from the judgment/order.

(b)   After preparing the draft, it is necessary to go through the same to find out, if anything, essential to be mentioned, has escaped discussion.

(c)   The ultimate finished judgment/order should have sustained chronology, regard being had to the concept that it has readable, continued interest and one does not feel like parting or leaving it in the midway. To elaborate, it should have flow and perfect sequence of events, which would continue to generate interest in the reader.

(d)  Appropriate care should be taken not to load it with all legal knowledge on the subject as citation of too many judgments creates more confusion rather than clarity. The foremost requirement is that leading judgments should be mentioned and the evolution that has taken place ever since the same were pronounced and thereafter, latest judgment, in which all previous judgments have been considered, should be mentioned. While writing judgment, psychology of the reader has also to be borne in mind, for the perception on that score is imperative.

(e)   Language should not be rhetoric and should not reflect a contrived effort on the part of the author.

(f)  After arguments are concluded, an endeavour should be made to pronounce the judgment at the earliest and in any case not beyond a period of three months. Keeping it pending for long time, sends a wrong signal to the litigants and the society.

(g) It should be avoided to give instances, which are likely to cause public agitation or to a particular society. Nothing should be reflected in the same which may hurt the feelings or emotions of any individual or society.

(See 2013-TIOL-1417-CESTAT-BANG)