14 15. In State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and Others

ANKIT CHIRAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. vs. ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

…ore, it cannot be, at this stage, allowed to argue on the plea which was never taken in the successive written statement and the plaintiff cannot be taken by surprise. 46. Reliance can also be placed on Prakash Chandra vs. Angadlal and others (1979) 4 SCC 393, wherein a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court has held that the ordinary Rule is that specific performance should 38 be granted. It is also to be noted that once major part of the consideration has been paid and possession has been delivered in part performance, the equity would shift in favour of the purchaser, who has already pr…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

…or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure. 26. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in PRAKASH CHANDRA VS. ANGADLAL AND OTHERS reported in (1979) 4 SCC 393 and brought to notice of this Court Para No.9, wherein an observation is made that the ordinary rule is that specific performance should be granted. It ought to be denied only when equitable considerations point to its refusal and the circumstances show that damages would constitute an adequate relief. 27. The counsel also relied upon t…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) vs. THE KARNATAKA LAW SOCIETY

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Srishananda Criminal Revision Petition No.200/2015 Between: Kattikara Rajappa S/O. Kattikara Basappa Aged About 58 Years R/O. Taggihalli Village Honnali Taluk Davangere District - 577217. …Petitioner (By Sri. Umesh Mulimani, Adv. For Sri. S. V. Prakash., Adv) And: 1. The State Of Nyamatti Police

…used, even if fully accepted, cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence. In that case, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. 14 15. In State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and Others [(1997) 4 SCC 393] it was held that at Sections 227 and 228 stage the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence…