PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. M/S SAKEN COMMUNICATION

PDF · subscribers
ITA/264/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01030622201705 November 2018Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,BELLUNKE A.S2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Civil Petition. The reasoning was based on the procedural default by the petitioner. The order sheet showed that the petitioner had been granted sufficient time to take steps for serving notice to the respondent. Despite these opportunities, the petitioner failed to comply with the procedural requirements. Consequently, the court found no basis to proceed with the petition and dismissed it. The judgment does not address the merits of the transfer application or the underlying dissolution of marriage case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the dismissal was on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

This case involves a Civil Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner, Smt. T. Archana, sought to withdraw and transfer a pending case, M.C. No. 3453/2016, filed by the respondent, Sri Thouseef Raza.P. The respondent had filed this case under Section 27(1)(b) and (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, seeking dissolution of their marriage, which was registered on July 8, 2010. The original case was pending before the III Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru. The petitioner requested that the case be transferred to the Court of the Principal Family Judge, Tumkur. The petition was listed for orders. The order sheet indicated that sufficient time had been granted to the petitioner to take steps for service of notice to the respondent. However, the petitioner failed to take these steps.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Civil Petition filed under Section 24 of the CPC, seeking transfer of M.C. No. 3453/2016 (dissolution of marriage under Section 27(1)(b) and (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954) from Bengaluru to Tumkur, should be allowed. The petitioner's contention, as evident from the prayer, was that the case should be withdrawn and transferred to the court in Tumkur. The petitioner relied on Section 24 of the CPC, which deals with the power of the High Court to transfer suits. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner's counsel, other than the prayer itself. The respondent's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The court's decision was based on the procedural aspect of the petitioner failing to take necessary steps.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CIVIL PETITION NO.264 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

Smt. T.Archana W/o Thouseef Raza.P D/o K.S Thippeswamy Aged about 28 years R/at No.2, 1st Cross Opp. SGR Ladies Hostel Near Income Tax Office Amarajyothinagar Tumkur-572 102.

…Petitioner

(By Sri P.D. Subrahmanya, Advocate - Absent)

AND:

Sri Thouseef Raza. P S/o S.A Peer Pasha Aged about 33 years R/at No.9, 4th Cross Gurappanapalya BTM 1st Stage, Jayanagar Bengaluru-560 029 Now Residing at No.18, Soluru Village, Magadi Taluk Ramanagar District Pin-562 127.

…Respondent

This Civil Petition is filed under Section 24 of CPC, praying to pass an order/direction directing to

:: 2 ::

withdraw and transfer M.C No.3453/2016 filed by the respondent herein under Section 27 (1)(b) and (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for dissolution of marriage registered on 08.07.2010 between the respondent and the petitioner herein, from the court of the III Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru to the Court of the Principal Family Judge, Tumkur.

This Civil Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER The order sheet shows that sufficient time has been granted to the petitioner for taking steps. In spite of that, petitioner has not taken steps for service of notice to the respondent. Therefore, petition is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

ckl/-

More judgments on Section 24

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →