transfer petition filed by the wife at the time of final hearing dismissed

'
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL.) NO(s). 1232 OF 2011


SANGEETA Petitioner(s)


VERSUS


RAJINDER KUMAR Respondent(s)

O R D E R
Heard learned counsel on either side.
We are informed that the matter FAO No.46-M of 2000 titled
"Sangeeta versus Rajinder Kumar Pasrija", pending before the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, is at the stage of final
hearing and under such circumstances we are not inclined to
entertain prayer for its transfer.
The transfer petition is accordingly dismissed with a
request to the High Court to dispose of the matter within a period of
one month from the date of communication of copy of this order,
without granting undue adjournment to either of the parties.
Parties will also cooperate for its early disposal and will not seek
unnecessary adjournment.


....................J.
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN]


....................J.
[DIPAK MISRA]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 24, 2012

ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.11 SECTION XVIA


S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL.) NO(s). 1232 OF 2011

SANGEETA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

RAJINDER KUMAR Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for stay and office report)

Date: 24/09/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA


For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv.
Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Pawan Kishor, Adv.
Mr. Sarvjit Pratap, Adv.
Mr. Param Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,A.O.R.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Bhakti Pasrija, Adv.
Mr. Prakhar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Anu Gupta,A.O.R.


UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

In terms of signed order, the transfer petition is
dismissed.


|(A.D. Sharma) | |(Renuka Sadana) |
|Court Master | |Court Master |


(Signed Order is placed on the file)

regarding application of section 271(1)(c) of the income tax act,1961

2012-ITS-1811-SC-Northland Dev. & Hotel Corporation -Vs- Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra* , On. SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 FacebookTwitter EmailPrint SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Northland Dev. & Hotel Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra* S.H. KAPADIA, CJ. AND MADAN B. LOKUR, J. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2134 OF 2007† SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Bottom line:- Where difference between loan amount, due and payable by assessee was on account of non inclusion of interest amount in loan amount by bank, no concealment was to be alleged against assessee for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) Preetesh Kapur, Ms. Bhakti Pasrija, Prakhar Sharma, Ms. Anu Gupta and Sanjeev Kumar Sharma for the Appellant. R.P. Bhatt, Fuzail A. Ayyubi, Vikas Malhotra, Ms. Anil Katiyar and B.V. Balaram Das for the Respondent. ORDER Heard learned counsel on both sides. The civil appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. ORDER Heard learned counsel on both sides. In the present case, the assessee took loan from Citi Bank N.A. to buy a hotel [capital asset]. Default was committed in re-payment of loan. Suit was filed for recovery, which was settled by signing consent decree on 30th April, 1982. The consent decree recites that the borrowers acknowledge their liability to the plaintiff-Bank in the sum of Rs.42,45,477/-, being the outstanding amount in the loan account of the Bank as on 30th April, 1982. However, it appears that, in the Books of Accounts of the assessee, the outstanding amount repayable to the Bank was Rs.52,07,873/- as on 30th April, 1982. Consequently, the Department came to the conclusion that there was waiver by the Bank to the extent of approximately Rupees ten lakhs. This amount was sought to be taxed by the Department. We are not concerned with the taxability of the said sum of Rupees ten lakhs. The Department initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the assessee. It is true that, in the Books of Accounts of the assessee, the outstanding amount, as on 30th April, 1982, was Rs.52,07,873/-, including interest. However, the decree in favour of the Bank was for Rs.42,45,477/- because that was the amount indicated as the outstanding amount due and payable by the assessee to the Bank in its Books of Account. It appears that the Bank has not calculated the interest over the years possibly for the reason that, in its Accounts, this amount was classified as 'NPA'. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable. Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with no order as to costs. Click here to see the comments (0) or add a new comment

Search

Divya Jain V/s DPS & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 7828/2011 DIVYA JAIN AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Bhakti Pasrija, Advocate with petitioners and their mother, Mrs. Sumi Jain in person. versus THE MANAGING COMMITTEE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Advocate for R-1. Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate for R-2. Mr. V.K. Sabharwal and Mr. Sudhir Mathur, Advocates with respondent No.3, Mr. Sanjay K. Jain in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI O R D E R 23.11.2011 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners, Ms. Divya Jain, aged 16 years, a student of class X and Master Kunal Jain, aged 14 years, a student of class VIII, who were studying in respondent No.1/School till 01.09.2011. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioners through their mother and natural guardian, requested respondent No.1/School to issue Transfer W.P.(C) 7828/2011 Page No.1 of 6 Certificates/Migration Certificates to enable them to attend a school in Mumbai, having shifted to the said city on account of personal reasons. However, despite repeated requests made on behalf of the petitioners, respondent No.1/School did not issue the said Transfer Certificates/Migration Certificates, as a result of which, the petitioners have been forced to file the present petition. 2. Vide order dated 03.11.2011, notice was issued to the respondents, who are duly represented in Court. Counsel for respondent No.1/School states that a joint request for migration made by the parents of the petitioners, namely, Mrs. Sumi Jain and Mr. Sanjay K. Jain/respondent No.3, was initially being processed, but on 19.09.2011, a representation was received from respondent No.3, father of the petitioners, stating inter alia that Transfer Certificates/Migration Certificates may not be issued by respondent No.1/School, as his signatures on the earlier representation made by him jointly with his wife, requesting for migration of his children, might have been forged. It is stated that it was on account of the aforesaid letter received by respondent No.1/School that the Transfer Certificates/Migration Certificates were not issued to the petitioners. W.P.(C) 7828/2011 Page No.2 of 6 3. The parents of the petitioners are present in Court. On a pointed enquiry as to the reason for making such a representation to respondent No.1/School, respondent No.3 states that there is marital discord between him and the mother of the petitioners, due to which she has shifted with the petitioners to her parental home at Mumbai, which is why Transfer Certificates/Migration Certificates have been sought by them to attend a school in Mumbai. He states that he is ready and willing to take them back in his home in Delhi and he will try to iron out the differences with his wife, but Transfer Certificates/Migration Certificates should not be issued to enable the petitioners in shifting from their present school in Delhi to Mumbai. 4. Having regard to the fact that the academic careers of the petitioners are involved and particularly, in view of the fact that petitioner No.1 is at a crucial stage of her academic life, being a student of class X, it was deemed appropriate to interact with all the parties in the chambers. Some time has been spent by the Court in the said process by calling the parents jointly and separately, as also the petitioners with their parents and separately to ascertain the true position as it exists as also find out as to what the petitioners really desire in the present circumstances. In all the sessions held in the W.P.(C) 7828/2011 Page No.3 of 6 Chamber in the pre-lunch period, the petitioners have taken a categorical stand that they would not like to stay with their father in Delhi and would like to pursue their studies in Mumbai. 5. In such circumstances, primacy ought to be given to the wishes of the petitioners and this Court sees no reason to deny them their right to continue their academic education in Mumbai. The petitioners are fairly grown up and seem to know their mind. Looking at the discord within the family, it is in the interest of the petitioners to concentrate on their academics in a peaceful and harmonious environment, which is presently possible in Mumbai at their grandparent?s house, more so when they themselves have stated that their academics have been adversely impacted in the past due to the incompatibility between their parents. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is deemed expedient to direct respondent No.1/School to issue forthwith the Transfer Certificates/Migration Certificates in favour of the petitioners through their mother, Mrs. Sumi Jain. Besides the aforesaid certificates, respondent No.1/School shall also communicate to the school, where the petitioner No.1 is attending classes in Mumbai, her registration No. by which she is registered with CBSE, so as to enable her to take her class X board examinations. Respondent No.1/School shall also release any other document requested by the petitioners to enable them to continue their studies in Mumbai. 7. The petition is disposed of. 8. At this stage, having interacted with the mother and father of the petitioners and in view of the consent given by both sides, it is deemed appropriate to direct them to appear before a Mediator, to be appointed by the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre to try and resolve their interse disputes in an amicable manner. 9. Counsel for the petitioners states that Mrs. Sumi Jain, being a homemaker, has no independent source of income, and since she has shifted base from Delhi to Mumbai, respondent No.3 be requested to offer some amount for her travel, boarding and lodging in Delhi, to which he has fairly conceded and has agreed to initially deposit a sum of `25,000/- with the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, which amount shall be kept with the Centre, for being disbursed to Mrs. Sumi Jain on her visit to Delhi, on the basis of the actual expenses incurred by her, by submitting requisite bills in that regard. As it is stated that the examinations of the petitioners are slated to commence in the month of December 2011, it is agreed that W.P.(C) 7828/2011 Page No.5 of 6 the mother of the petitioners and respondent No.3 shall appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, on 04.01.2012 at 3:30 PM and the following days to explore the possibility to arrive at a negotiated settlement of all their disputes. 10. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, for perusal and compliance. DASTI to the parties under the signatures of the Court Master. HIMA KOHLI,J NOVEMBER 23, 2011 rkb 11.