SMT LAKSHMI HANDE PURI, IRS vs. UNION OF INDIA

PDF · subscribers
RP/81/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01041518202113 December 2022Bench: ALOK ARADHE,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court reviewed its earlier order and deleted the sentence stating the respondent employee was not entitled to back wages. It was directed that the respondent employee shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner sought a review of a previous High Court order. The review petition was filed under Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the previous order regarding back wages was correct and if it should be reviewed to grant consequential benefits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 114

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

RP No. 81 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY REVIEW PETITION NO. 81 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMI HANDE PURI, IRS AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS W/O MR. RAJDEEP SINGH PURI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AUDIT)-1, 301, AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NAVKESH MUNISH BATRA., ADV.) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE.

2.

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON.

3.

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DHOLPUR HOUSE, SHAHJAN ROAD NEW DELHI - 110 069. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. PRAMAD, CGC)

Digitally signed by B A KRISHNA KUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

RP No. 81 of 2022

THIS R.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47, RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE IMPUGNED FINAL IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 21.04.2021, PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.22382/2019 (S-CAT).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

This petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 21.04.2021 passed in W.P.No.22382/2019.

2.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the sentence respondent employee shall not entitled for back wages is deleted from paragraph No.16 of the aforesaid order and it is directed that respondent employee shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 21.04.2021 passed in W.P.No.22382/2019. Accordingly, review petition is disposed of.

SD/- JUDGE

SD/- JUDGE

NMS

More judgments on Section 114

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 114 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →