M/S CONFIDENT GROUP vs. MR. AKHIL C

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N S SANJAY GOWDA

71 confers jurisdiction on the District, State and National 21 Commission to execute its own orders in the same fashion as a decree of a civil court would be enforced. 17. Thus, if the expression "order" found in Section 47(1)(a)(iii) would include 'any' and 'every' order passed in execution proceedings, then such interpretation would result

DHARWAD, HAVERI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar W.P Nos.108208 -108209 /2016 (La-Res) C/W W.P No.104784/2016, Wp No.106158/2016, W.P No.106159/2016, W.P No.106157/2016, W.P No.107889/2016, W.P Nos.109564 - 109565/2016, W.P No.112114/2017, W.P No.112263/2017, W.P Nos.104989-990/2018, W.P No.106557/2015, W.P Nos.106269-106270/2015, W.P No.103770/2015, W.P No.104783/2016, W.P No.104728/2016, W.P No.104025/2016, W.P No.103548/2016, W.P Nos.103486-103488/2016, W.P No.103319/2016, W.P No.102905/2016, W.P No.103019/2016, W.P No.102904/2016, W.P No.103451/2016, W.P No.103447/2016, W.P No.104785/2016, W.P No.103380/2016, W.P No.101172/2016, W.P No.106558/2015, W.P Nos.100431-100435/2016, W.P Nos.103479-103481/2016, W.P Nos.103483-103484/2016, W.P No.103485/2016 & W.P No.103482/2016

68 1.31 The property bearing Sy.No.27/6B1 measuring 1 guntas 4.75 anas situated at Lakkammanahalli Dharwad belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of the BRTS project. However, payment of compensation was denied on the ground that the acquired land was earmarked as road margin area in the single layout plan approved by the Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development

M/S SRI. KRISHNA MILKS PRIVATE LTD., vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar W.P Nos.108208 -108209 /2016 (La-Res) C/W W.P No.104784/2016, Wp No.106158/2016, W.P No.106159/2016, W.P No.106157/2016, W.P No.107889/2016, W.P Nos.109564 - 109565/2016, W.P No.112114/2017, W.P No.112263/2017, W.P Nos.104989-990/2018, W.P No.106557/2015, W.P Nos.106269-106270/2015, W.P No.103770/2015, W.P No.104783/2016, W.P No.104728/2016, W.P No.104025/2016, W.P No.103548/2016, W.P Nos.103486-103488/2016, W.P No.103319/2016, W.P No.102905/2016, W.P No.103019/2016, W.P No.102904/2016, W.P No.103451/2016, W.P No.103447/2016, W.P No.104785/2016, W.P No.103380/2016, W.P No.101172/2016, W.P No.106558/2015, W.P Nos.100431-100435/2016, W.P Nos.103479-103481/2016, W.P Nos.103483-103484/2016, W.P No.103485/2016 & W.P No.103482/2016

68 1.31 The property bearing Sy.No.27/6B1 measuring 1 guntas 4.75 anas situated at Lakkammanahalli Dharwad belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of the BRTS project. However, payment of compensation was denied on the ground that the acquired land was earmarked as road margin area in the single layout plan approved by the Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development

RAMESH S/O. SATAPPA KHODANPUR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar W.P Nos.108208 -108209 /2016 (La-Res) C/W W.P No.104784/2016, Wp No.106158/2016, W.P No.106159/2016, W.P No.106157/2016, W.P No.107889/2016, W.P Nos.109564 - 109565/2016, W.P No.112114/2017, W.P No.112263/2017, W.P Nos.104989-990/2018, W.P No.106557/2015, W.P Nos.106269-106270/2015, W.P No.103770/2015, W.P No.104783/2016, W.P No.104728/2016, W.P No.104025/2016, W.P No.103548/2016, W.P Nos.103486-103488/2016, W.P No.103319/2016, W.P No.102905/2016, W.P No.103019/2016, W.P No.102904/2016, W.P No.103451/2016, W.P No.103447/2016, W.P No.104785/2016, W.P No.103380/2016, W.P No.101172/2016, W.P No.106558/2015, W.P Nos.100431-100435/2016, W.P Nos.103479-103481/2016, W.P Nos.103483-103484/2016, W.P No.103485/2016 & W.P No.103482/2016

68 1.31 The property bearing Sy.No.27/6B1 measuring 1 guntas 4.75 anas situated at Lakkammanahalli Dharwad belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of the BRTS project. However, payment of compensation was denied on the ground that the acquired land was earmarked as road margin area in the single layout plan approved by the Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development

SRI. SHASHIDHAR vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITIONI OFFICER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar W.P Nos.108208 -108209 /2016 (La-Res) C/W W.P No.104784/2016, Wp No.106158/2016, W.P No.106159/2016, W.P No.106157/2016, W.P No.107889/2016, W.P Nos.109564 - 109565/2016, W.P No.112114/2017, W.P No.112263/2017, W.P Nos.104989-990/2018, W.P No.106557/2015, W.P Nos.106269-106270/2015, W.P No.103770/2015, W.P No.104783/2016, W.P No.104728/2016, W.P No.104025/2016, W.P No.103548/2016, W.P Nos.103486-103488/2016, W.P No.103319/2016, W.P No.102905/2016, W.P No.103019/2016, W.P No.102904/2016, W.P No.103451/2016, W.P No.103447/2016, W.P No.104785/2016, W.P No.103380/2016, W.P No.101172/2016, W.P No.106558/2015, W.P Nos.100431-100435/2016, W.P Nos.103479-103481/2016, W.P Nos.103483-103484/2016, W.P No.103485/2016 & W.P No.103482/2016

68 1.31 The property bearing Sy.No.27/6B1 measuring 1 guntas 4.75 anas situated at Lakkammanahalli Dharwad belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of the BRTS project. However, payment of compensation was denied on the ground that the acquired land was earmarked as road margin area in the single layout plan approved by the Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development

GIRISH S/O SHANKARAO CHINCHORE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar W.P Nos.108208 -108209 /2016 (La-Res) C/W W.P No.104784/2016, Wp No.106158/2016, W.P No.106159/2016, W.P No.106157/2016, W.P No.107889/2016, W.P Nos.109564 - 109565/2016, W.P No.112114/2017, W.P No.112263/2017, W.P Nos.104989-990/2018, W.P No.106557/2015, W.P Nos.106269-106270/2015, W.P No.103770/2015, W.P No.104783/2016, W.P No.104728/2016, W.P No.104025/2016, W.P No.103548/2016, W.P Nos.103486-103488/2016, W.P No.103319/2016, W.P No.102905/2016, W.P No.103019/2016, W.P No.102904/2016, W.P No.103451/2016, W.P No.103447/2016, W.P No.104785/2016, W.P No.103380/2016, W.P No.101172/2016, W.P No.106558/2015, W.P Nos.100431-100435/2016, W.P Nos.103479-103481/2016, W.P Nos.103483-103484/2016, W.P No.103485/2016 & W.P No.103482/2016

68 1.31 The property bearing Sy.No.27/6B1 measuring 1 guntas 4.75 anas situated at Lakkammanahalli Dharwad belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of the BRTS project. However, payment of compensation was denied on the ground that the acquired land was earmarked as road margin area in the single layout plan approved by the Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development

DILIPKUMAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar W.P Nos.108208 -108209 /2016 (La-Res) C/W W.P No.104784/2016, Wp No.106158/2016, W.P No.106159/2016, W.P No.106157/2016, W.P No.107889/2016, W.P Nos.109564 - 109565/2016, W.P No.112114/2017, W.P No.112263/2017, W.P Nos.104989-990/2018, W.P No.106557/2015, W.P Nos.106269-106270/2015, W.P No.103770/2015, W.P No.104783/2016, W.P No.104728/2016, W.P No.104025/2016, W.P No.103548/2016, W.P Nos.103486-103488/2016, W.P No.103319/2016, W.P No.102905/2016, W.P No.103019/2016, W.P No.102904/2016, W.P No.103451/2016, W.P No.103447/2016, W.P No.104785/2016, W.P No.103380/2016, W.P No.101172/2016, W.P No.106558/2015, W.P Nos.100431-100435/2016, W.P Nos.103479-103481/2016, W.P Nos.103483-103484/2016, W.P No.103485/2016 & W.P No.103482/2016

68 1.31 The property bearing Sy.No.27/6B1 measuring 1 guntas 4.75 anas situated at Lakkammanahalli Dharwad belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of the BRTS project. However, payment of compensation was denied on the ground that the acquired land was earmarked as road margin area in the single layout plan approved by the Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development

M.R. SATHAYANARAYAN AKALWADI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar W.P Nos.108208 -108209 /2016 (La-Res) C/W W.P No.104784/2016, Wp No.106158/2016, W.P No.106159/2016, W.P No.106157/2016, W.P No.107889/2016, W.P Nos.109564 - 109565/2016, W.P No.112114/2017, W.P No.112263/2017, W.P Nos.104989-990/2018, W.P No.106557/2015, W.P Nos.106269-106270/2015, W.P No.103770/2015, W.P No.104783/2016, W.P No.104728/2016, W.P No.104025/2016, W.P No.103548/2016, W.P Nos.103486-103488/2016, W.P No.103319/2016, W.P No.102905/2016, W.P No.103019/2016, W.P No.102904/2016, W.P No.103451/2016, W.P No.103447/2016, W.P No.104785/2016, W.P No.103380/2016, W.P No.101172/2016, W.P No.106558/2015, W.P Nos.100431-100435/2016, W.P Nos.103479-103481/2016, W.P Nos.103483-103484/2016, W.P No.103485/2016 & W.P No.103482/2016

68 1.31 The property bearing Sy.No.27/6B1 measuring 1 guntas 4.75 anas situated at Lakkammanahalli Dharwad belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of the BRTS project. However, payment of compensation was denied on the ground that the acquired land was earmarked as road margin area in the single layout plan approved by the Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development

SRI.ARUN VENKANNA NAVALI, vs. HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar W.P Nos.108208 -108209 /2016 (La-Res) C/W W.P No.104784/2016, Wp No.106158/2016, W.P No.106159/2016, W.P No.106157/2016, W.P No.107889/2016, W.P Nos.109564 - 109565/2016, W.P No.112114/2017, W.P No.112263/2017, W.P Nos.104989-990/2018, W.P No.106557/2015, W.P Nos.106269-106270/2015, W.P No.103770/2015, W.P No.104783/2016, W.P No.104728/2016, W.P No.104025/2016, W.P No.103548/2016, W.P Nos.103486-103488/2016, W.P No.103319/2016, W.P No.102905/2016, W.P No.103019/2016, W.P No.102904/2016, W.P No.103451/2016, W.P No.103447/2016, W.P No.104785/2016, W.P No.103380/2016, W.P No.101172/2016, W.P No.106558/2015, W.P Nos.100431-100435/2016, W.P Nos.103479-103481/2016, W.P Nos.103483-103484/2016, W.P No.103485/2016 & W.P No.103482/2016

68 1.31 The property bearing Sy.No.27/6B1 measuring 1 guntas 4.75 anas situated at Lakkammanahalli Dharwad belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of the BRTS project. However, payment of compensation was denied on the ground that the acquired land was earmarked as road margin area in the single layout plan approved by the Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development

CHAMANSAB S/O ALLABHKSHA PATHAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar W.P Nos.108208 -108209 /2016 (La-Res) C/W W.P No.104784/2016, Wp No.106158/2016, W.P No.106159/2016, W.P No.106157/2016, W.P No.107889/2016, W.P Nos.109564 - 109565/2016, W.P No.112114/2017, W.P No.112263/2017, W.P Nos.104989-990/2018, W.P No.106557/2015, W.P Nos.106269-106270/2015, W.P No.103770/2015, W.P No.104783/2016, W.P No.104728/2016, W.P No.104025/2016, W.P No.103548/2016, W.P Nos.103486-103488/2016, W.P No.103319/2016, W.P No.102905/2016, W.P No.103019/2016, W.P No.102904/2016, W.P No.103451/2016, W.P No.103447/2016, W.P No.104785/2016, W.P No.103380/2016, W.P No.101172/2016, W.P No.106558/2015, W.P Nos.100431-100435/2016, W.P Nos.103479-103481/2016, W.P Nos.103483-103484/2016, W.P No.103485/2016 & W.P No.103482/2016

68 1.31 The property bearing Sy.No.27/6B1 measuring 1 guntas 4.75 anas situated at Lakkammanahalli Dharwad belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of the BRTS project. However, payment of compensation was denied on the ground that the acquired land was earmarked as road margin area in the single layout plan approved by the Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development

SHRI. DHARMASTALA MANJUNATHESHWARA EDUCATION vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar W.P Nos.108208 -108209 /2016 (La-Res) C/W W.P No.104784/2016, Wp No.106158/2016, W.P No.106159/2016, W.P No.106157/2016, W.P No.107889/2016, W.P Nos.109564 - 109565/2016, W.P No.112114/2017, W.P No.112263/2017, W.P Nos.104989-990/2018, W.P No.106557/2015, W.P Nos.106269-106270/2015, W.P No.103770/2015, W.P No.104783/2016, W.P No.104728/2016, W.P No.104025/2016, W.P No.103548/2016, W.P Nos.103486-103488/2016, W.P No.103319/2016, W.P No.102905/2016, W.P No.103019/2016, W.P No.102904/2016, W.P No.103451/2016, W.P No.103447/2016, W.P No.104785/2016, W.P No.103380/2016, W.P No.101172/2016, W.P No.106558/2015, W.P Nos.100431-100435/2016, W.P Nos.103479-103481/2016, W.P Nos.103483-103484/2016, W.P No.103485/2016 & W.P No.103482/2016

68 1.31 The property bearing Sy.No.27/6B1 measuring 1 guntas 4.75 anas situated at Lakkammanahalli Dharwad belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of the BRTS project. However, payment of compensation was denied on the ground that the acquired land was earmarked as road margin area in the single layout plan approved by the Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development

PREMABAI W/O MOHAN GAONKAR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar W.P Nos.108208 -108209 /2016 (La-Res) C/W W.P No.104784/2016, Wp No.106158/2016, W.P No.106159/2016, W.P No.106157/2016, W.P No.107889/2016, W.P Nos.109564 - 109565/2016, W.P No.112114/2017, W.P No.112263/2017, W.P Nos.104989-990/2018, W.P No.106557/2015, W.P Nos.106269-106270/2015, W.P No.103770/2015, W.P No.104783/2016, W.P No.104728/2016, W.P No.104025/2016, W.P No.103548/2016, W.P Nos.103486-103488/2016, W.P No.103319/2016, W.P No.102905/2016, W.P No.103019/2016, W.P No.102904/2016, W.P No.103451/2016, W.P No.103447/2016, W.P No.104785/2016, W.P No.103380/2016, W.P No.101172/2016, W.P No.106558/2015, W.P Nos.100431-100435/2016, W.P Nos.103479-103481/2016, W.P Nos.103483-103484/2016, W.P No.103485/2016 & W.P No.103482/2016

68 1.31 The property bearing Sy.No.27/6B1 measuring 1 guntas 4.75 anas situated at Lakkammanahalli Dharwad belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of the BRTS project. However, payment of compensation was denied on the ground that the acquired land was earmarked as road margin area in the single layout plan approved by the Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development

MAHAMMAD GOUSE S/O JAFARSAB SAVANUR, vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar W.P Nos.108208 -108209 /2016 (La-Res) C/W W.P No.104784/2016, Wp No.106158/2016, W.P No.106159/2016, W.P No.106157/2016, W.P No.107889/2016, W.P Nos.109564 - 109565/2016, W.P No.112114/2017, W.P No.112263/2017, W.P Nos.104989-990/2018, W.P No.106557/2015, W.P Nos.106269-106270/2015, W.P No.103770/2015, W.P No.104783/2016, W.P No.104728/2016, W.P No.104025/2016, W.P No.103548/2016, W.P Nos.103486-103488/2016, W.P No.103319/2016, W.P No.102905/2016, W.P No.103019/2016, W.P No.102904/2016, W.P No.103451/2016, W.P No.103447/2016, W.P No.104785/2016, W.P No.103380/2016, W.P No.101172/2016, W.P No.106558/2015, W.P Nos.100431-100435/2016, W.P Nos.103479-103481/2016, W.P Nos.103483-103484/2016, W.P No.103485/2016 & W.P No.103482/2016

68 1.31 The property bearing Sy.No.27/6B1 measuring 1 guntas 4.75 anas situated at Lakkammanahalli Dharwad belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of the BRTS project. However, payment of compensation was denied on the ground that the acquired land was earmarked as road margin area in the single layout plan approved by the Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development

SMT.RUKMINI @ RUKMINIBAI vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar W.P Nos.108208 -108209 /2016 (La-Res) C/W W.P No.104784/2016, Wp No.106158/2016, W.P No.106159/2016, W.P No.106157/2016, W.P No.107889/2016, W.P Nos.109564 - 109565/2016, W.P No.112114/2017, W.P No.112263/2017, W.P Nos.104989-990/2018, W.P No.106557/2015, W.P Nos.106269-106270/2015, W.P No.103770/2015, W.P No.104783/2016, W.P No.104728/2016, W.P No.104025/2016, W.P No.103548/2016, W.P Nos.103486-103488/2016, W.P No.103319/2016, W.P No.102905/2016, W.P No.103019/2016, W.P No.102904/2016, W.P No.103451/2016, W.P No.103447/2016, W.P No.104785/2016, W.P No.103380/2016, W.P No.101172/2016, W.P No.106558/2015, W.P Nos.100431-100435/2016, W.P Nos.103479-103481/2016, W.P Nos.103483-103484/2016, W.P No.103485/2016 & W.P No.103482/2016

68 1.31 The property bearing Sy.No.27/6B1 measuring 1 guntas 4.75 anas situated at Lakkammanahalli Dharwad belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of the BRTS project. However, payment of compensation was denied on the ground that the acquired land was earmarked as road margin area in the single layout plan approved by the Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S FIBRES AND FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(3) for A.Y.2006-07 the expenses debited under this head of Rs.10,68,71,384/- was disallowed and added

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

71 section 11A. That is what Dharmendra Textile decides. Then the Apex Court held as under: “It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)(c), the conditions stated therein must exist.” 45. Following the said judgment it was held that it goes without saying that for the applicability of Section 271(1)(c) conditions

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

68 be introduced. Clause (vi) of Section 17(2) does not occur in depiction to treat anything as a fringe benefit as perquisite which may otherwise not come within its purview. In fact, none of the provisions under Section 17(2) or under the impugned rules deviate from the basis concept of perquisites and fringe benefits as part

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