Court : Karnataka
- 1 - NC:2024. KHC:38869 CRL.P No.9909 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No.463 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE19H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION No.9909 OF2017(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.463 OF2018(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-) In Crl.P.9909 of 2017 BETWEEN: SMT G.K. AKSHATA, AGED ABOUT35YEARS, W/O DR. K.J.RUDRADEV, R/AT No.38/58, BASAVA KRUPA. GOVINDAPPA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI: KRISHNAMURTHY G. HASYAGAR, ADVOCATE) AND V. RAGHAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT50YEARS, S/O OF SRI. VASUDEVACHAR, MANAGING PARTNER & AUTHORISED SIGNATORY M/S PIONEER DEVELOPERS, - 2 - NC:2024. KHC:38869 CRL.P No.9909 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No.463 of 2018 KANASU, 241/A, 1ST CROSSS, II BLOCK, III PHASE, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAMESH P. KULKARNI., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)29ITD522(Delhi)
1. Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 1-5-1985 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-V, New Delhi (Shri R.S. Rathore). They involve a common ground and, therefore, they are consolidated and disposed of by this common order.2. Common ground - The revenue has grievance against deletion of the addition of Rs. 4,37,837 (out of addition Rs. 5,19,443 made on a/c. of excess breakage/damaged bottles ; and the assessee has appealed against partial relief sustaining balance. This common ground concerns the claim in respect of breakage in empty bottles, shown in the consumption of stores and spares vide Schedule 13 appearing on page 28 of the audited accounts.2.1 The Assessing Officer found that breakage of bottles as claimed was highly excessive. After considering the relevant facts the claim of breakage of bottles at 5 per cent of the consumption shown in respect of bottles of 750 ml. (mililitres) size was adopted for allowance. One of the factors considered b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Tracy v. Tuffly - 134 U.S. 206 (1890) U.S. Supreme Court Tracy v. Tuffly, 134 U.S. 206 (1890) Tracy v. Tuffly No. 134 Argued November 22, 25, 1889 Decided March 3; 1890 134 U.S. 206 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus The third section of the Act of the Legislature of Texas entitled "An act in relation to assignments for the benefit of creditors, and to regulate the same and the proceedings thereunder," passed March 25, 1879, provides that "Any debtor desiring so to do may make an assignment for the benefit of such of his creditors only as will consent to accept their proportional share of his estate and discharge him from their respective claims, and in such case the benefits of the assignment shall be limited and restricted to the creditors consenting thereto; the debtor shall thereupon be and stand discharged from all further liability to such consenting creditors on account of their respective claims, and when paid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)34CTR(Bom)1; [1984]145ITR614(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue in which the question of law which has been referred to the High Court for opinion is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to have extra payment made by it to the estate of the deceased partner towards his share in the appreciation in the value of the shares added to the original cost of the shares for the purposes of computation of capital gains arising on the sale of those shares ?'2. The assessee, M/s. Patel Brothers, Bombay, is a partnership firm constituted under a partnership deed dated October 18,1949. Initially there were three partners who were brothers, viz., Sorab Pestonji Patel, Jehangir Pestonji Patel and Shavak Pestonji Patel. The partnership deed specifically provided that the death or retirement of any partner shall not dissolve the partnership and the partnership shall continue with the remaining partners.3. Sorab Pestonji Patel died on 23rd...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971AP58
1. In O. S. No. 30 of 1967 on the file of the District Munsif, Khammam, the respondent in this revision petition obtained a decree against three defendants for recovery of Rs. 2,558-10p together with further amounts of interest and costs as specified in the decree. The three defendants are a firm doing business in the name of Nagubandi Ranganayakulu, now represented by a Receiver appointed by the Subordinate Judge, Warangal in O. S. No. 82 of 1966 and Ranganayakulu and Madhava Rao who are the partners of the 1st defendant firm. The decree in O. S. No. 30 of 1967 was transferred to the Mahabubad court for execution. The respondent decree holder moved the court in E. P. No. 25 of 1968 for the arrest and detention in civil prison of the 2nd defendant, Ranganayakulu. The petition was granted by the executing court. The order is challenged in this revision petition by the judgment-debtor who is directed to be arrested and detained in prison.2. There are various points taken by Mr. Y. Surana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT419
ORDERA. Gopal Rao, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, plaintiff died and his son was brought on record as his legal representative.2. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.3. The suit was filed for (a) partition and separate possession of plaintiff's one-half share in the plaint, 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and (b) directing the defendant to render a full and detailed account of the income from the plaint schedule properties.4. Plaint 'A' schedule consists of immoveable properties and plaint 'B' schedule consists of rice mill, electric motor, starter, items of machinery and furniture in the rice mill.5. The case of the plaintiff, as per the averments in the plaint is:- The defendant is his younger brother. Their father, Eswaraiah, was doing a petty business at the time of his death. Plaintiff and defendant were members of a Joint Hindu Family. The defendant was a minor at that time and he was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(1)ARBLR288(Delhi); 137(2007)DLT401; 2007(95)DRJ55
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. Present is an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) directed against the order dated November 16, 2006 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on an application i.e. IA - C/4, filed by the claimants (Respondent herein) under Section 17 of the Act. The application is - C/4 was filed for interim relief on which the Arbitral Tribunal has issued interim directions to the appellants to release an amount of Rs. 1 crore to the respondents in four equal installments of Rs. 25,00,000/- each in four months being in the first week of December, 2006 and to pay interest to the respondents on their balance amount of capital reflected in the final amounts as on 31.3.2005 @ 18% per annum. The appellants herein are respondents before the Arbitral Tribunal.2. Disputes are essentially between two families. Appellant Subhash Chander Chachra is the elder brother while the respondent Sh. Ashwani Kumar Chachra is the younger brother. The brothers alo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)131CTR(Guj)127; [1996]222ITR831(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' by its order dt. 6th April, 1993, has referred the following questions of law to this Court for its decision which are said to have arisen out of the ITA No. 5230/Ahd/1991 relating to the asst. yr. 1988-89 : The questions which have been referred at the instance of the assessee in RA No. 709/Ahd/92 are : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,48,24,876 became taxable in the hands of the firm which according to the assessee stood dissolved through dissolution deed dt. 16th Aug., 1984 (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the case would be governed by the Supreme Court decision in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1984) 154 ITR 148 and not by the Supreme Court decision in CWT vs . Arvind Narottam : [1988]173ITR479(SC) and by the Madras High Court decision in the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1963]49ITR515(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - This is a reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act arising out of a controversy between the revenue and the assessee, whether the firm of partnership styled Tyresoles (India), Calcutta, is registrable under section 26A of the Act for the assessment year 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55, 1955-56, and 1956-57. The Income-tax Officer refused registration and on appeal by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner registration was refused for the first four years, but was granted for the fifth year 1956-57. Both the assessee and the department preferred appeals to the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal which restored the decision of the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal however has referred the following questions of law to this court under section 66(1) of the Act at the instance of the assessee :'1. Whether the firm as constituted up to September 21, 1950, is the same as the one the carried on the business thereafter with only a change in its constitution 2....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1962]45ITR170(Cal)
P. B. MUKHARJI J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act by the Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal. The question of law on which the decision of this court is sought is as follows :'Whether on a true construction of the partnership deed dated 7th April, 1949, registration under section 26A of the Act can be granted to the assessee.'The assessee is a firm of partnership called Khetan & Company, Jalpaiguri. The assessment year out of which these proceedings started is the year 1950-51. The deed of partnership is dated 7th April, 1949. It is expressly made between four parties, (1) Sagarmull Khetan, (2) Shankarlal Khetan, (3) Rameshwardas Agarwalla, and (4) Shambhulal Khetan. The first, second and the fourth parties are brothers, all being sons of one Ghasiram Khetan. The fourth party, Shambhulal Khetan, in the deed of partnership is described as a minor son of Ghasiram Khetan and represented by his natural guardian and father,...
Tag this Judgment!