Hardev Motor Transport v. State of M. P

Smt K S Swarnamba vs. State of Karnataka

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.4193/2021 (Kvoa) Between: 1. Smt. K.S. Swarnamba, Aged 85 Years , (Benefit Of Sr. Citizen Not Claimed) W/O. Sri. Shivaram, R/At No 1630, 3Rd Main 1St Cross, 1St Phase, 5Th Stage, Beml Layout, Rajarajeshwarinagar Bengaluru - 560 098 2. Smt. Bhagyalakshmi Aged 67 Years, (Benefit Of Sr. Citizen Not Claimed) W/O. Late Venkataswamy R/At No. 165, 2Nd Main Road, Chamrajpet, Bengaluru - 560 018. 3. K.S. Balasubramanya Aged 65 Years, (Benefit Of Sr. Citizen Not Claimed), S/O. K.S. Shivaram, R/At. No. 16030, 3Rd Main, 1St Cross, 1St Phase, 5Th Stage, Beml Layout, Rajarajeshwarinagar Bangalore - 560 098. 4. Smt. K.S. Sarojamma, Aged 62 Years, (Benefit Of Sr. Citizen Not Claimed), W/O. Late D. Shamkumar R/At. No. Fb- 60, Hal Township, 2Nd Main, Vimanapura Post, Bangalore - 560 017.

…THERS reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 6. OSWAL FATS AND OILS LIMITED VS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION), BAREILLY DIVISION, BAREILLY AND OTHERS reported in 2010 (4) SCC 728 7. RAMESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS FURU RAM AND ANOTHER reported in (2011) 8 SCC 613 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners while countering the arguments of the respondents, submitted that one Sri.Venkatasubbaiah was the Shanbhogue and holder of the Village Office and he was holding the ‘Shanbhogue Inamthi land’ in respect of Sy.No.267 to the extent of 7 acres 27 guntas and similarly in Sy.No.161 to the extent of 1…

The State of Karnataka Through the Secretary vs. M/S Kardicoppal Estate Thithimathi

Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

…axable in the hands of a dissolved firm post-dissolution only for certain purposes. This judgment also therefore, cannot have any application in the present factual scenario. 22. Lastly, the judgment in Hardev Motor Transport v. State of M. P. [(2006) 8 SCC 613] was cited before us. Para 31 thereof was read out in support of the proposition that by inserting an explanation in a statute, the main provision of the Act cannot be defeated or enlarged. Applying this test to the present case, it is clear that in 1997 both the main provision, that is Section 26(4), as well as explanation were added retros…

Asst. Commnr. of Agri. Income Tax vs. M/S. Netley 'B' Estate

…e hands of a dissolved firm post- dissolution only for certain purposes. This judgment also therefore, cannot have any application in the present factual scenario. Lastly, the judgment in Hardev Motor Transport v. State of M. P. and others [(2006) 8 SCC 613] was cited before us. Para 31 thereof was read out in support of the proposition that by inserting an explanation in a statute, the main provision of the Act cannot be defeated or enlarged. Applying this test to the present case, it is clear that in 1997 both the main provision, that is Section 26(4), as well as explanation…

Asst. Commnr. of Agri. Income Tax vs. M/S. Netley 'B' Estate

…e hands of a dissolved firm post- dissolution only for certain purposes. This judgment also therefore, cannot have any application in the present factual scenario. Lastly, the judgment in Hardev Motor Transport v. State of M. P. and others [(2006) 8 SCC 613] was cited before us. Para 31 thereof was read out in support of the proposition that by inserting an explanation in a statute, the main provision of the Act cannot be defeated or enlarged. Applying this test to the present case, it is clear that in 1997 both the main provision, that is Section 26(4), as well as explanation…