PRALHADRAO AND ANR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
WP/200544/2019HC KarnatakaKAHC03000574201909 January 2020Bench: G.NARENDAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the suit, which was the basis for the interim relief, has been disposed of. Therefore, the writ petition challenging the interim order has become infructuous.

What were the facts?

The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging an interim relief order. The respondent's counsel submitted that the underlying suit has since been disposed of. The petitioners were absent and made no representation.

What were the issues?

Whether a writ petition challenging an interim order remains maintainable after the disposal of the main suit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 227

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION No.200544/2019 (GM-CPC) Between: 1. Pralhadrao S/o Ramrao Deshpande Age: 70 years, Occ: Pvt. Service R/o Station Road Shikarkhana Cross Vijaypura-586 101 2. Rajesh S/o Shankar Rao Mujumdar Age: 50 years, Occ: Service R/o Station Road Shikarkhana Road Vijayapur-586 101 ... Petitioners (By Sri Uday P. Honguntikar, Advocate-Absent) And: 1. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bijapur Range Opp. Civil Hospital Belgaum-590 001

2 2. The Union of India Represented by the Secretary Govt. of India New Delhi-110 001 ... Respondents (By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate for R1; R2-served but unrepresented) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order in Miscellaneous Appeal No.9/2014 passed by III- Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapur, dated 12.10.2018 which is at Annexure-F. This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:- ORDER It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the petition is directed against the interim relief granted in the suit and now the suit itself has been disposed of and hence, the petition is rendered infructuous.

3 2. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. The submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 is placed on record. The petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. Sd/- JUDGE NB*

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →