Technical objection which defeats justice should be discouraged. If infraction of procedural provision does not provide for any consequences, such a provision has to be construed as directory and not mandatory. Karnataka High Court.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and another vs M/s. Wipro Limited. Income Tax Appeal 462/2017 decided on 30 November 2020.

Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/351234/1/ITA462-17-30-11-2020.pdf

Relevant paragraphs: 6. The constitution bench of the Supreme Court in SARDAR AMRJIT  SING  KALARA  VS.  PRAMOD GUPTA, (2003) 3 SCC 272 has held  that  procedural laws have always been viewed as handmaid of justice and not to hamper the cause of justice. It has further been held that technical objection which tend to be stumbling blocks to defeat and delay substantial and effective justice should be viewed strictly for being discouraged except when mandate of law inevitably necessitates it. (ALSO SEE: SAMBHAJI VS. GANGABAI, (2008) 17 SCC 117, RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA VS. PRAKASH CHANDRA MISHRA (2011) 11 SCALE 469 and RAMJI GUPTA AND ORS. VS. GOPI KRISHAN AGRAWAL (D) AND ORS. AIR 2013 SC 3099). In STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. VS. BIHAR   RAJYA   BHOOMI   VIKAS   BANK SAMITHI, (2018) 9 SCC 472, it has been held that if infraction of procedural provision does not provide for any consequences, such a provision has to be construed as directory.

Compiled by S. Basavaraj and Kriti Taggarse Daksha Legal