SHRIKANTH S/O JALEENDRA MANE vs. SRI SHAKTIKANTA DAS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

PDF · subscribers
CCC/200122/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC03006586201527 January 2016Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,RAM MOHAN REDDY3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The court accepted the explanation for the delay in complying with the order. Since compliance was made, the contempt proceedings were dropped.

What were the facts?

The complainant filed a contempt petition alleging disobedience of a previous court order. The respondents filed a memo with an order showing action taken for compliance and an affidavit explaining the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the respondents were in contempt of court for delaying compliance with a previous order. Whether the explanation for the delay was satisfactory.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CCC NO.200122/2015 (CIVIL) Between: Shrikanth S/o Jaleendra Mane Age: 38 years, occ: Driver-Cum-peon Plot No.165, Biddapur Colony Near Hanuman Temple GDA Quarters, Kalaburagi. …Complainant (By Sri P. Vilas Kumar, Advocate) And: 1. Sri Shaktikanta Das Principal Secretary Union of India Department of Finance Parliament of India, New Delhi. 2. Sri Dinesh Varma Prl. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Central Revenue Building Queen Road, Bangalore-1.

2 3. Sri Vyahare Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Central Revenue Building Queen Road, Bangalore-1. …Respondents (By Sri Sanjeev Kumar C. Patil, Advocate) This CCC is filed under Section 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Court Act praying to Initiate Contempt proceedings against the Accused/Respondents and order for taking action as deemed fit including punishing him in so far disobedience of the order passed in WP No.84948/2011 (S-REG) dated 19.01.2015 which is at Annexure-A and order for taking action as deemed fit including punishing them with imprisonment in the interest of justice. This CCC coming on for orders this day, RAM MOHAN REDDY J., made the following: ORDER Memo dated 13.01.2016 is filed by learned counsel for respondent enclosing the copy of order dated 23.11.2015 over the action taken for compliance with the order dated 19.01.2015 in W.P.No.84948/2011. The explanation for the delay in compliance with that order, is stated in the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Head Quarters)

3 (Administration), Bengaluru enclosed to the memo dated 27.01.2016. 2. Accepting the explanation for the delay and regard being had to compliance of the order complained of in this petition, reserving liberty to the complainant to question said order, if aggrieved, contempt proceeding is dropped. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *sp

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →