Justice Md Nizamuddin Of Calcutta High Court Recuses From Hearing Former MP Chief Minister Kamal Nath's Case

Update: 2022-03-23 06:42 GMT
story

Justice Md Nizamuddin of the Calcutta High Court on Tuesday recused himself from hearing a petition by former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Kamal Nath against the Income Tax authorities in connection with the IT department's decision to transfer his case from Kolkata to Delhi.The matter arose from income tax raids in multiple states, including West Bengal, in the premises of people...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Justice Md Nizamuddin of the Calcutta High Court on Tuesday recused himself from hearing a petition by former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Kamal Nath against the Income Tax authorities in connection with the IT department's decision to transfer his case from Kolkata to Delhi.

The matter arose from income tax raids in multiple states, including West Bengal, in the premises of people allegedly linked to Nath in April 2019, when he was the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh. The raids were conducted in connection with a notice issued to the senior Congress leader by the IT authorities. 

On Tuesday, Justice Nizamuddin recused from hearing the matter and further ordered for the case to be placed before Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava

"On my personal ground, this matter is released from my list. Let it be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice", the order read. 

In the instant case, Kamal Nath had moved the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-9, challenging the IT summons against him asking him to appear in New Delhi, and not in Kolkata, under which he is a tax assessee. 

This is not the first time that a judge of the Calcutta High Court has recused from hearing a matter citing personal difficulty.  Earlier this month, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf had recused from hearing a matter after alleging that a lawyer representing one of the parties had approached him personally to issue a favourable order. Calling the incident 'extremely unfortunate', Justice Saraf had indicated to senior advocate Harish Salve who was appearing through video conferencing that the errant lawyer also belonged to the party the he was appearing for i.e. the petitioner.

Case Title: Kamal Nath v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 89

Click Here To Read/Download Order 


Tags:    

Similar News