Mr Pravinchandra Ratilal Shah vs. Mrs. S. V. Vijaya
Held
The Court decided to record the joint memo filed by the appellant and respondents. The appellant agreed to vacate the suit schedule premises on or before December 31, 2020, and to pay a monthly license fee of Rs. 36,575/-. The respondent agreed to these conditions. Furthermore, respondent No. 1 undertook to bear 50% of the GST amount of Rs. 1,575/- and to issue a certificate for its collection. The respondent also agreed to return the security deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/-, after deducting any arrears of license fee, utility bills, or painting costs at the time of vacating. The Court found that both parties had accepted the terms and conditions mentioned in the joint memo. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the joint memo.
Facts
The appellant, Mr. Pravinchandra Ratilal Shah, was a party to an appeal (RFA No. 1062/2018) before the Karnataka High Court, arising from a suit for vacant possession (OS No. 178/2010). The respondents were Mrs. S.V. Vijaya and Mr. Atul Kishen. The appellant filed a joint memo and an affidavit agreeing to vacate the suit premises by December 31, 2020, and to pay a monthly license fee of Rs. 36,575/-. The respondents agreed to these terms. Additionally, respondent No. 1 agreed to bear 50% of a GST amount of Rs. 1,575/- and to issue a certificate for its collection. The respondents also agreed to return a security deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/-, subject to deductions for arrears of license fee, utility bills, or painting costs upon vacating.
Key Issues
1. Whether the terms and conditions agreed upon by the appellant and respondents in the joint memo are binding and should be recorded by the Court? Appellant's arguments: The appellant, through the joint memo, has agreed to specific terms regarding vacating the premises, payment of license fees, and the handling of GST and security deposit. These terms represent a mutual understanding and settlement between the parties. Revenue/State's arguments: Not recorded. The judgment does not explicitly state arguments made by the revenue or state, as this appears to be a civil dispute between private parties where GST is a component of a payment, not a dispute with the tax authorities.
Sections Cited
Section 96, Order 21 Rule 103
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
RFA.NO.1062/2018 (EJE)
BETWEEN:
MR. PRAVINCHANDRA RATILAL SHAH AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, S/O MR. RATILAL LAHERCHAND SHAH, PRESENTLY AT M/S POORNIMA NOVELTIES, NO. 23/1, HARI KRISHNA ROAD, HIGH GROUNDS, BENGALURU - 560 001. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAGHU HULIKAL, ADV.,)
AND:
MRS. S.V.VIJAYA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, W/O MR. S.V.VENKATESH,
MR.ATUL KISHEN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O MR. S.V.VENKATESH,
PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF USA REP. BY HIS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MRS. S.V.VIJAYA
BOTH ARE PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
2
NO.2/1, VISHWANATHA RAO ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.MANJULA K.S., ADV., ON BEHALF OF SRI K.N.KRISHNA RAO, ADV., FOR C/R1 & R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER S
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.