THE MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., vs. SRI A CHANDRASEKHAR

Bench: G.NARENDAR,P.N.DESAI

23. In fact in para (b) at very beginning of the judgment the Court had framed the following issues. The same reads as under: “(b) Whether the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by a consumer or any person against the assessment 51 made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or action taken under

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 68 of the Act appears to have been done without affording a specific opportunity Date of Judgment :23

DR M BASAPPA REDDY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Writ Petition No.12915 Of 2021 (Gm-Res)

23. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of some of the appellants has further rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu to buttress the contention that the issue of requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC can be raised

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Dilip B Bhosale

23: 58 Provided that it shall not apply to a math or temple attached to or managed by math.” In order to see whether any different intention appears in the new Act, it would be useful to make a reference to similar provisions in the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. In the Rent Act, 1999 the following section was inserted

SHRI SURESH KUMAR T JAIN vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

23 creditors. The discrepancy amounted to Rs.35,33,289/-. (Rs.35,57,868 minus Rs.24,579/-). Out of the balance 26 creditors, in 4 cases, the credit balance were confirmed as nil. In 10 cases, the assessee did not furnish the addresses. In balance of 5 12 creditors, notice were returned unserved on the grounds of ‘insufficient address’, ‘no such person

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

68, when the conditions of the said section are not satisfied. 5.2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the impugned addition when the Appellant established that he had sufficient source for deposit of cash to the bank account. 5.3. The Lower Authorities are not justified in rejecting the explanation of the Appellant of cash withdrawals being

PASCHIM VIBHAG SHIKSHAN MANDAL BIJAGARI vs. THE COMMISSIONER and APPELLATE AUTHORITY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No.101436/2018 (S-Pro) C/W. Writ Petition No.77680/2013 (Gm-Ksr), Writ Petition No.81667/2013 (Gm-R/C) & Writ Petition No.101972/2017 (Gm-R/C)

23 of the KSR Act 1960. 8.4. Even when the Trust had been registered under the BPT Act, it is the KSR Act that was applicable for the functioning of the Trust, since the Trust was carrying on educational activities and not Religious or Charitable activities. 8.5. Subsequent to the clarification issued by the under Secretary, Revenue Department, there

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX vs. M/S BOSCH LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed as devoid of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

23 25, 1995. It is one of the well settled principles of law that documents have to be proved by primary evidence i.e., if the execution of a document has to be proved, it has to be proved by the witness or by the person in whose presence the transaction did take place and who had seen the person signing

SRI S S JYOTHI PRAKASH vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER

The appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68 of the Act and with regard to the addition under Section 69 of the Act, the Tribunal found that the property in question was valued by the Departmental valuer, approved valuer of the assessee and also District Registrar/Appellate Authority for the stamp duty purpose and hence the Tribunal decided the value of the property at the value which

M/S MYSORE POLYMERS & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, writ appeal No

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

23 6.8.2009 in TAET NOS. 1/2006, 2/2006 and 3/2006 and contended relying on the latter part of this judgment which reads as under: “ While the facts it appears to be not correct as the relevant period which was subject matter of assessment by the assessing officer was from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003. Even in law, if by subsequent notification an entry

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

Sections 73, 74 and 75 49 of the Indian Registration Act, indicate the formalities. 49. When the execution is denied by the seller after completing formalities of execution, the Sub- Registrar would get authority to admit the execution. The purchaser has a right to present the document for compulsory registration. In this case, it was not the case

M/S PRASHANTI AFFILIATES vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (‘KST Act’ for short) assailing the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short) dated 07.03.2019 passed in STA No.2196/2014, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee has been rejected relating to the assessment year 2000-01. 2. The petitioner – assessee was a proprietorship concern carrying on the business

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (‘KST Act’ for short) assailing the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short) dated 07.03.2019 passed in STA No.2196/2014, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee has been rejected relating to the assessment year 2000-01. 2. The petitioner – assessee was a proprietorship concern carrying on the business

M/S. JSW STEEL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

68 complaint filed under Section 45 against the petitioner, as a result of which, the order of attachment by operation of law as contemplated under Section 5(3) would get extinguished. He would also contend that in case of petitioner, confirmation has not happened in terms of Section 8(3). Hence, by operation of law, provisional attachment

SRI S THIMMARAJU vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

68 complaint filed under Section 45 against the petitioner, as a result of which, the order of attachment by operation of law as contemplated under Section 5(3) would get extinguished. He would also contend that in case of petitioner, confirmation has not happened in terms of Section 8(3). Hence, by operation of law, provisional attachment

M/S JSW STEEL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

68 complaint filed under Section 45 against the petitioner, as a result of which, the order of attachment by operation of law as contemplated under Section 5(3) would get extinguished. He would also contend that in case of petitioner, confirmation has not happened in terms of Section 8(3). Hence, by operation of law, provisional attachment

M GOPI vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

68 complaint filed under Section 45 against the petitioner, as a result of which, the order of attachment by operation of law as contemplated under Section 5(3) would get extinguished. He would also contend that in case of petitioner, confirmation has not happened in terms of Section 8(3). Hence, by operation of law, provisional attachment

NATARAJ DAKSHINAMURHTY vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

68 complaint filed under Section 45 against the petitioner, as a result of which, the order of attachment by operation of law as contemplated under Section 5(3) would get extinguished. He would also contend that in case of petitioner, confirmation has not happened in terms of Section 8(3). Hence, by operation of law, provisional attachment