Bombay High Court slammed Anil Ambani for creating “artificial urgency” in his tax petition. He was fined Rs 25,000, which must be paid to Tata Memorial Hospital.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court took a strong stand against what it called an “artificial urgency” created by businessman Anil Ambani. The court has fined him Rs 25,000 for trying to get an urgent hearing for his legal case, which challenged a notice sent to him by the Income Tax (IT) department in April 2022.
A division bench of Justice M S Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain made it clear that asking for an urgent hearing is a special option, and it should not be misused. In this case, they felt there was no real need for urgency.
The judges clearly said that
“the facility to seek urgent hearing cannot be invoked by creating such artificial urgency.”
Anil Ambani had gone to the High Court with a petition against the IT department’s show-cause notice. But the judges noted that it was just a notice asking for an explanation, and not any final order, so there was no need for such a rushed hearing. In their official order dated March 27, which became public on Wednesday, the court refused his request for an urgent hearing.
The court said the challenge was only against a show-cause notice and not a final decision, so it did not require urgent intervention. For misusing the court’s time and process, they asked Anil Ambani to pay Rs 25,000 as a cost. This amount is to be donated to the Tata Memorial Hospital, a well-known cancer treatment center, and the payment must be done within two weeks.
Later, when the petition came up for hearing in the usual way on April 1, Anil Ambani’s senior lawyer, Rafiq Dada, informed the judges that the Income Tax department had already passed its final order on March 27 regarding the tax issue for that assessment year.
ALSO READ: SEBI Fines Anil Ambani’s Son Rs 1 Crore in Reliance Home Finance Case
Because of that, the lawyer said there was no point in continuing the case and requested to withdraw the petition. He also told the court that the fine imposed earlier had already been paid.
The judges took note of the statement and agreed to close the case.
The order noted that the court
“accepted the statement and disposed of the plea as withdrawn.”
This case highlights how courts take misuse of urgent hearing requests seriously.
Creating fake urgency not only wastes valuable court time but can also attract financial penalties, as seen in this case involving a well-known industrialist.
CASE TITLE:
Anil Ambani v. Deputy Director of Income Tax.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Justice Yashwant Varma
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
