What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no illegality in the trial court's order rejecting the applications. The court observed that the trial court's reasoning for rejection was valid and there were no grounds to interfere.

The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the trial court's order rejecting their applications to summon income tax authorities and direct the plaintiff to produce income tax returns. These documents were considered relevant to the disposal of the main suit.

What were the issues?

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the applications to summon income tax documents relevant to the suit. The court examined the legality and validity of the trial court's order.

Sri K V Krishnamurthy vs Sri M R Sampangiramaiah | Karnataka High Court 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

WRIT PETITION NO.57819/2015 (GM-CPC) & WRIT PETITION NO.58275/2015 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI.K.V.KRISHNAMURTHY

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

S/O LATE GUTTIGEPPA

R/AT NO.312, 3RD FLOOR

DIVYA MSR GATEWAY

GOKULA, BENGALURU-560054

SMT.K.ARCHANA

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

W/O R.NATARAJ

R/AT “SHIVACHETANA”

3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN

AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT

SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU

560094

... PETITIONERS

(By Sri.G.V.SHASHI KUMAR, Adv)

AND:

SRI.M.R.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

S/O LATE M.S.RAMAIAH

R/O SRI LAKSHMIVENKATESWARA NILAYA

NO.9, BETHAL STREET, H.R.B.R. LAYOUT

KALYANANAGAR, BENGALURU-43

SRI.M.S.RAJARAM

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

S/O M.R.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

R/O SRI LAKSHMIVENKATESWARA NILAYA

NO.9, BETHAL STREET, H.R.B.R. LAYOUT

KALYANANAGAR, BENGALURU-43 ….RESPONDENTS

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.8313/2011 FROM THE FILE OF THE 12TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.12.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner.

Learned counsel submitted that the application filed by defendant No.2 summoning income tax authorities

3 to produce the income tax returns and also another application directing the plaintiff to produce the said documents were rejected. Hence, counsel submitted that these documents were having bearing on the disposal of the main suit itself. It is also his submission that the trial court at one breath observed that the relevancy of the said documents will be considered, but on the other hand, the applications were rejected calling for the said documents.

I have perused the grounds urged in the writ petition. The order passed by the trial court on the application. Looking to the observations made by the trial court while disposing of the said application, I do not find any illegality in the said order. No valid and legal grounds to interfere with the order of the trial court. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Psg*

SRI K V KRISHNAMURTHY vs. SRI M R SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments