HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Gopal Nigam v. Bank of Baroda & Ors.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 41955 of 2026
No separate citation stated in the source ·
Second Schedule: Rule60(1), as cited in this order
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two judicial members · Sanjay Kumar, J. · Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
01 · Facts of the case
The petition challenged the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s20 January 2026 judgment in Writ Petition 988/2012. The record names Bank of Baroda among the respondents and refers to a proclamation placed before the Supreme Court. It does not set out the underlying debt, property details, transaction chronology or tax assessment. Applications concerned delay in filing and exemption from official translation.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
After condoning delay and exempting official translation, the Court observed that although the High Court had applied Rule 60(1) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act 1961, the copy of the proclamation placed on record did not satisfy the requirements referred to in the order. The next operative step was issuance of notice. This observation is therefore reported at its actual interim procedural stage, not as a final ruling cancelling a sale or resolving all recovery objections.
03 · Judicial decision
Notice was issued returnable on 26 October 2026, with service by all modes including dasti. The Court ordered the status quo obtaining on 7 August 2026 to be maintained until the next hearing. The source does not grant leave, dispose of the petition or award final relief.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In whose favour: Petitioner obtained notice and interim status-quo protection; no final merits winner
Delay condoned; translation exemption granted; notice issued; status quo until next hearing
Interim notice order, not final adjudication
The listed26 October 2026 date and temporary protection are historical directions in this source. Later orders and whether protection remains operative have not been verified.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Separate a notice-stage observation about a document from final adjudication of recovery or auction rights. Keep the actual proclamation and High Court record available for any later analysis. The source itself cites Rule 60(1); this note does not silently replace that citation or infer an independent Rule 53 holding. Verify later proceedings before describing the stay or status quo as currently effective.
Judicial authorship and separate opinions
Record of proceedings; individual author not statedAct identified in the reviewed source
Income-tax Act, 1961Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Identified source rendition: 1 PDF pages; SHA-256 0bc0597b7726a7d53f536111eefdfcf16be73158b67b4b7ab0b9b0626e486ea5. Original bytes preserved.
- The source expressly cites Rule 60(1) in relation to the proclamation. That wording is retained without silently rewriting it to another recovery rule.
- Delay condonation and issue of notice are not a grant of special leave or final allowance.
- Status quo is limited to the next hearing in the source; it is not certified as continuing today.
- No debt amount, property identity, AY or tax demand is supplied by this one-page record.
- Decision date 7 August 2026 is distinct from the 8 August 2026 digital-signature annotation.
- No neutral or reported citation printed in this order.
- No assessment year is stated in this short procedural record.
Statutory scope
No substantive statutory merits determination in this procedural record
No automatic Income-tax Act2025 mapping or present procedural-status certification.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-04. Subsequent appeals, review proceedings, stays, reversals and later judicial treatment have not been comprehensively checked. This note is not a citator status certificate.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
- official record of proceedings — PDF 1 pages
SHA-256: 0bc0597b7726a7d53f536111eefdfcf16be73158b67b4b7ab0b9b0626e486ea5
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.