HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Sunil Vasudeva and others v. Sundar Gupta and others
Civil Appeal No. 5140 of 2019
[2019] 8 SCR 1190 ·
Income-tax Act, 1961: section 293 · Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: section 114
Holding and result. The section 293 bar and the effect of an earlier High Court order had been overlooked, creating an error apparent. Review and restoration of the writ were upheld, but the Supreme Court decided no auction-title or property merits and directed the High Court to decide the writ.
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two-judge bench; judgment delivered by Ajay Rastogi, J. · A. M. Khanwilkar, J. · Ajay Rastogi, J.
01 · Facts of the case
The dispute concerned a 1964 income-tax auction of 43 Prithviraj Road while an official receiver held the property in an earlier suit. A writ filed in 1985 was later disposed on the premise that parties could pursue a civil suit, even though that suit had already been dismissed and the section 293 bar had not been considered. The Calcutta High Court later allowed review and restored the writ.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Section 293 places a complete bar on civil suits against the revenue or income-tax authority. Because that mandate, the dismissal of the supposed pending suit, and the potential effect of the 8 September 1965 order were overlooked, the High Court could treat the omission as an error apparent and restore the writ so no party was left remediless.
Source: Primary judgment: reasoning
03 · Judicial decision
The High Court committed no error in review jurisdiction by recalling its earlier order and restoring Writ Petition No. 18500(W) of 1985. All substantive disputes were left for decision in that writ after hearing the parties.
Source: Primary judgment: holdings
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Appeal dismissed without costs. The Calcutta High Court was requested to decide the restored writ on its own merits and as expeditiously as possible.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: this is a procedural review-and-restoration decision, not a merits ruling validating or invalidating the 1964 auction. Use it for the overlooked section 293 bar and review jurisdiction only; verify the restored writ’s later history before relying on any property consequence.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 16-page SCR report read in page-preserving text and every page image inspected, from the reported opening page through the operative disposition.
- Exact catalogue SHA-256 and 16-page count verified; every page was read and visually inspected.
Statutory scope
Historical statutory provisions are described as they appeared in the report. Verify the current enactment, amendments and later judicial treatment before reliance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-12. No comprehensive later-treatment or present-law clearance is represented. The note reports the historical statutory text and result in this primary report only.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from the identified primary report and has not been represented as independently human-reviewed.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, governing statutory version and subsequent judicial treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court's holding, and no current-law clearance is claimed.