THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S LM WINDPOWER (INDIA)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/138/2014HC KarnatakaKAHC01014371201417 April 2015Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The parties to the appeal have entered into a compromise agreement and resolved their disputes amicably. The High Court accepted the compromise petition and disposed of the appeal accordingly.

What were the facts?

The appellant filed a suit for recovery of money, which was dismissed by the trial court. The appellant then filed an appeal against this dismissal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be allowed based on a compromise between the parties. The dispute was regarding the recovery of money.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 96

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA R.F.A. NO.138/2014 (MON)

BETWEEN:

K.V. JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O MR.K.S.VENKATA SUBBAN, # 34, INCOME TAX LAY OUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 040. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.B.S.RANGANATHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

LANGFORD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.706, 5TH BLOCK, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 072.

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANGING DIRECTOR, P.J.R. PRABHU, FORMERLY KNOWN AS

MS.SKYLINE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNIT II,FIRST FLOOR, ST. PATRICK’S BUSINESS COMPLEX, MUSEUM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025.

2 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR P.J.R. PRABHU.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 3.12.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2753/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

THIS RFA COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

The parties are present with their respective counsels and have filed a joint compromise petition. The contents of the compromise petition is read over and explained to the parties and they admit the true terms of the compromise petition. They would submit that they have resolved their disputes amicably with free consent and volition.

2.

Hence, there is no impediment for this Court to accept the compromise petition and dispose of the appeal.

3.

As per the terms of the compromise petition, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) by way of Demand Draft is paid by the respondent to the appellant and the same is acknowledged by the appellant. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER

The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.

The office is directed to pass a decree in terms of the compromise petition. Permissible refund of court fee is allowed.

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 96

All 68 judgments and leading authorities on Section 96 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →