AMIT KAPOOR v. RAMESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI MANISH KUMAR SINGHAL

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,UMA SHANKER VYAS

…ision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept into such proceedings. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra, (2012) 9 SCC 460, where the scope of Section 397 has been considered and succinctly explained as under: “12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of th…

SURAKSHA PROPERTIES vs. ESTEEM ESTATE PROJECTS PVT LTD.,

Accordingly, WA.No.745/2020 stands allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

…ion Bench, the DRT was justified in extending the time period. 29. The learned Single Judge also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.N.Paramsivam and another vs. Sunrise Plaza, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 460, wherein it has been held that the provisions under Rules 57 and 58 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are mandatory in nature and non compliance with the provisions of Section 29 of the Act of 1993 and requirements under Rule 57 of Schedule II to the Income Tax Act, 1961, will render auction non est. 30. This Court has carefu…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU vs. M/S. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi V Hosmani Criminal Revision Petition No. 623 Of 2018 Between: N Kumar S/O Narappa Aged About 67 Years, C/O Balappa Door No 868/11-12 Muddalli Thota Behind Police Quarters P J Extension, Davangere - 577 002. …Petitioner [By Smt. Sharvari S. Bhatt, Advocate For Sri Sree Harsha A K., Advocate (Ph)] And: K S Ravindranath S/O K M Sannabasappa, Aged About 52 Years Agriculturist R/O D No 2135/1, 4Th Cross, Near Puranta Hospital, Mcc A Block, Davangere - 577002 …Respondent [By Sri M. Vinaya Keerthi, Advocate) (Vc)]

…10. From above, it is seen that this revision petition is by accused against concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr., reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, has held scope for interference against concurrent findings would be normally confined to examining whether findings suffer from perversity or are contrary to provisions of law. 11. Insofar as contention urged about non-service of demand notice prior to filing of complaint, it is seen that complainant produced demand notice, acknowledg…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI V KARUNAKARAN

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

…n also be imposed. The object of the provision is not merely penal but to make the accused honour the negotiable instruments. 42. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in the case of AMIT KAPOOR VS. RAMESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 regarding scope of revision is concerned, wherein the Apex Court held that the object of this provision is to set right a parent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law and the same has to be exercised where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based…

The Director of Income Tax-(Exemptions), vs. Vasavi Academy of Education

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

…HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK CRLREV No.601 of 2016 --- In the matter of an application under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and from an order dated 18.07.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.14/18 of 2015/2013. --- Anjali Panda --- Petitioner Versus State of Odisha (Vigilance) --- Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr.Soura Chandra Mohapatra and S.J.Nanda For Opp. Party : Mr.Sangram Das Standing Counsel (Vigilance) --- PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE D.DASH ------------…

The Commissioner of Income tax-Iv, vs. PES Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,

Accordingly, the petition is allowed

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

…date of passing of the Order and not from the date of filing of the application. 10. The scope of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been explained in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Supreme Court observed as under: “12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error…

SHRI. DURUDUNDESHWAR URBAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF

Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice K. Natarajan Criminal Revision Petition No.100023/2015 Between:

…y guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure. 28. It is useful to refer to judgment of this Court in Amit Kapoor and Ramesh Chander and Another, (2012) 9 SCC 460, where scope of Section 397 Cr. P.C. have been succinctly considered and explained. Para 12 and 13 are as follows: "12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a c…