THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. B. M. MUNIRAJU

PDF · subscribers
ITA/276/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01036505201824 July 2018Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, while considering the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition. The Court accepted this memo and accordingly dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition as withdrawn. The Court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition as prayed for, subject to compliance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court also directed the office to return the original documents to the petitioner's counsel. No decision was made on the merits of the underlying dispute or the appointment of an arbitrator.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Nagaraj Narayan, filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP) under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate a dispute arising from an agreement of sale dated August 21, 2006, with the respondent, M/s. Alpine Housing Development Corporation Ltd. The petition was filed before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The court was scheduled to hear the matter for admission. The petitioner's counsel subsequently filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file a fresh one.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with liberty to file a fresh petition? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, sought to withdraw the petition. No specific arguments were recorded in the judgment regarding the merits of the withdrawal request or the underlying dispute. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions or arguments made by the revenue (represented by M/s. Alpine Housing Development Corporation Ltd.) in response to the withdrawal request. The court's decision was based on the memo filed by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

CMP NO.276 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

MR. NAGARAJ NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, SON OF L.NARAYANA, NO.61, I CROSS, II BLOCK, INCOME TAX LAYOUT, JYOTHINAGAR ROAD, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 072. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.B.R.VISWANATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. ALPINE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NO.301, ALPINE ARCH, NO.10, LANGFORD ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.S.A.KABHEER. ... RESPONDENT

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN INDEPENDENT, COMPETENT AND IMPARTIAL PERSON HAVING KNOWLEDGE IN THE MATTER OF CONTRACTS TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 21.08.2006 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo for withdrawal of the Civil Miscellaneous petition with liberty to file fresh petition.

2.

Memo is placed on record. Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for after complying with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

Office is directed to return the original documents to the petitioner’s counsel forthwith.

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 11(6)

All 264 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →