Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Karnataka High Court restrains Bengaluru-based Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India from enrolling candidates for its courses
 Attachment on Cash Credit of Assessee under GST Act: Delhi HC directs Bank to Comply Instructions to Vacate
 Income Tax Addition Made Towards Unsubstantiated Share Capital Is Eligible For Section 80-IC Deduction: Delhi High Court
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court

Is the Minister an absconder?'
June, 04th 2011

Pulling up the authorities for not serving summons and warrants issued by a Bellary court to Tourism Minister G. Janardhan Reddy, the Karnataka High Court on Friday sought an explanation from the Home Secretary for the lapse.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justice H.G. Ramesh issued the directions on a public interest litigation petition filed by advocate G.R. Mohan complaining that the police had failed to execute the warrant for about five months.

Is the Minister an absconder? We need an explanation why the Minister in the State of Karnataka cannot be served with the warrants issued by the court, the Bench observed while directing the Home Secretary to file an affidavit giving the circumstances that prevented service of summons and warrants issued by the magistrate to Mr. Reddy, for five months and 20 days (between April 5, and September 25, 2010).

When Principal Government Advocate Basavaraj Kareddy could not given an answer, the court asked him whether it should seek an answer from the Advocate-General. At this point Mr. Kareddy said that he could not reply offhand as he had to see the order sheets of the magistrate's court that had issued the warrants.

However, the Bench disagreed with his submission terming it a wonderful idea. The Bench asked why police personnel were not attached to courts dealing with criminal cases for service of summons and warrants in Karnataka like in other States.

Even though Mr. Kareddy said that a policeman was deputed for this purpose, he could not explain the exact procedure. Then the Bench asked senior counsel C.V. Nagesh about the procedure followed. Mr. Nagesh said that police constables assigned to the jurisdictional court for following up cases related to their station took instructions from the respective courts.

The court then directed the Home Secretary and the Director-General and Inspector-General of Police to file an affidavit in the court within four weeks about the steps proposed by the State Government in this regard.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2025 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting