Wp(C)/25413/2010 Of Swapna Santhosh v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
23 May 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/25413/2010 Of Swapna Santhosh v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
23 May 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp(C)/25413/2010 Of Swapna Santhosh v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed aswithdrawn. ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933
WP(C).No. 25413 of 2010(B)
----------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------
SWAPNA SANTHOSH, 4B, ROYAL STADIUM MANSION,GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI - 25.
BY ADV. SMT.SANGEETHA LAKSHMANA
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------
1.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE 1, ERNAKULAM.
2.ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, ERNAKULAM.
3.THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, MG ROAD BRANCH, MAHARAJA'S COLLEGE GROUND, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTEDBY ITS MANAGER.
R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
R3 BY ADVS. SRI.A.ANTONY
SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
svs
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.25413 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 23[rd] day of May, 2011.
J U D G M E N T
It is noticed that, inspite of several chances given, thepetitioner has not complied with the conditions stipulated.I.A.No.6896 of 2011 is filed seeking permission to withdrawthe writ petition.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Bank submits that the impugned proceedings were pursuedand the residential apartment, which is the secured assets,has already been taken over possession and sold in publicauction. Since there is continued violation of the interimorder and indefinite prolonging of the proceedings in thewrit petition, learned counsel pressed for orderingcompensatory cost.
3. However, since the impugned proceedings went on
and the respondent Bank had conducted sale of the
W.P.(C).No.25413 of 2010
property, I am not inclined to order any cost at the time ofpermitting withdrawal.
4. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed aswithdrawn.
ami/
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.