Karnataka Court September 1999 Judgments
Kumar C.A. Vs. State Bank of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ365Kant
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J. 1. Petitioner herein challenges the award passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal in Reference No. 60/87, Annexure A and A1. Annexure A is the order passed on the preliminary issue and Annexure A1 is the final award. Annexure A relates to the validity of the domestic enquiry and by the said order the domestic enquiry was upheld. By Annexure A1 award the dismissal was also upheld by the Central Industrial Tribunal.2. I have heard Sri Jagadeeshachari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the employer.3. Petitioner was employed by the 1st respondent Bank as a clerical staff. While so, it is alleged that he had committed certain irregularities. With respect to the said misconduct the following charges were framed against the petitioner.'i) You fraudulently withdrew or arranged to withdraw indirectly amounts aggregating Rs. 1,89,422.33 from 40 Agricultural Cash Credit Accounts in the following manner and misappropriated the same: a) You post...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.M. Dharia
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR104(KAR); [2000]243ITR104(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of the order dated January 17, 1994, in respect of the assessment year 1981-82.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that Shree Trading Corporation (firm) could not be considered to be a benami of the assessee ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that income derived by Shree Trading Corporation could not be included in the individual assessment of the assessee ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. There was a firm by name Shree Trading Corporation which was doing the business separately. It was held that the said firm is a benami firm and accordingly proceedings under Section 147(a) were initiated. In the said firm the wife of the petitioner and the married daughter were partners. There were nine other partners who were friends and employees of S...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)KarLJ30
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Petitioner claims that he held a CL-2 licence between 1987 and 1989. Thereafter the licence was not renewed. The petitioner claims to have made an application for a fresh licence on 7-8-1998 for the excise year 1998-99. That was not granted. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner claims to have filed W.P. No. 6079 of 1999 seeking a direction to the respondents therein to issue a challan to enable the petitioner to pay licence fee forthe year 1998-99 without insisting upon payment of licence fee for the excise years 1989-90 to 1997-98. The said petition was disposed of by order dated 16-4-1999 directing the Department to pass appropriate orders. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application for the excise year 1999-2000. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are insisting upon payment of the licence fee for the excise years 1989-90 to 1997-98 as a condition precedent for considering the application for grant of licence for the year 1999-2000. Feeli...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Basavappa and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)159CTR(Kar)198; [2000]243ITR776(KAR); [2000]243ITR776(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following' question of law arising out of its order dated February 21, 1994, in respect of the assessment year 1989-90 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. '1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee cannot in defence against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, question the very validity of the assessment which gave rise to the penalty, even though the assessee had not actually questioned the validity of such assessment by way of appeal against the assessment 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) ?' 2. The assessee has filed a return of income on October 30, 1989, declaring total loss of Rs. 3,54,970. The assessment was proceeded under Section 143(1)(a) on June 26, 1991. Proceedings for reassessment were taken in pursuance of the notice un...
Tag this Judgment!Babu and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR29(KAR); [2000]243ITR29(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order dated February 20, 1995, in respect of the assessment years 1981-82 and 1983-84 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty was leviable under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any material to hold that there was no reasonable cause for the delay in the filing of the return of income ? 3. Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that there was no reasonable cause for the delay in the filing of the return of income was reasonable ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the delay in the filing of return for earlier year cannot constitute a reasonable cause for the delay in filing of the return fo...
Tag this Judgment!Widia (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Kar)142; [2000]242ITR678(KAR); [2000]242ITR678(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1989-90 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding the amounts of brought forward losses/allowances were required to be adjusted to the extent to which such adjustments would be necessary by way of set-off of such losses/allowances against current year's net profit, computed in accordance with the regular method of determination of income of the assessee for this year in accordance with the ordinary provisions of the Income-tax Act (from Sections 28 to 43), for the purpose of carrying forward such losses/allowances to the next year, without paying any attention to the fact that actually the asses-see was charged to tax in this year in accordance with the provisions of Section 115J only ?'2. The facts of the case, are, that the asse...
Tag this Judgment!V.C. Basavanna Vs. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC199
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J.1. The brief facts leading to this Writ Petition are that the petitioner is the holder of stage carriage permit No. 10/96-97 operating on the route Yakanur to Kayamballi. The 3rd respondent was granted with stage carriage permit by the 2nd respondent under subject No. 173/93-94 dated 3.11.1993 with a direction to the Secretary to assign timing and issue the permit within 30 days from the date of the timings proceedings. Notwithstanding the fact that the RTA fixed the timings as on 1.2.1994 and directed to produce the documents and obtain the permit within 30 days thereafter as per the resolution, the 3rd respondent has not produced the same. He had not obtained the permit even upto 1995 nor had he made any application under Rule 65 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, (for short 'the Rules') seeking extension of time in the year 1994. Therefore, the 2nd respondent under subject No. 110/94-95 dated 27.1.1995 revoked the sanction of permit granted under Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Vs. the Land Tribunal, Virajpet, Kodagu District and Other
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1556; 2000(2)KarLJ631
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging the order passed by the erstwhile Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Kodagu, Madikeri in Nos. 42 and 49 of 1987-88, dated 11-1-1988 by setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 5-11-1977 in Case No. LRM/42/74-75 by dismissing Appeal No. 42 filed by the petitioner and allowing the appeal filed by the deceased-second respondent and the third respondent, urging various legal contentions.2. The necessary brief facts are stated as hereunder for the purpose of considering the rival contentions urged by the parties in this revision petition.The petitioner filed Form No. 7 dated 10-7-1974 under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') claiming occupancy rights in respect of the lands bearing Sy. No. 70, measuring 4.5 acres, Sy. No. 72 measuring 1.91 acres in Ambatti Village contending that he was a tenant since eight years as on the date of filing of the application. It is the f...
Tag this Judgment!Sabulal and Others Vs. Kunnamma and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR4664; 2000(6)KarLJ397
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's revision petition. The judgment-debtor-Sabulal has filed this revision petition against the order dated 2-1-1995, passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in M.A. No. 61 of 1993 (Annexure-D) dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-Sabulal against the order passed by the Munsiff, Anekal dated 30-3-1993 (Annexure-C). During the pendency of this revision, thepetitioner-Sabulal died and his legal heirs have come on record as petitioners 1 to 7.2. The facts of this case, very briefly, are as follows:The respondents 1 to 6 had filed a suit in S.C. No. 1269 of 1985 against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 5,141.20 paise. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court. The respondents 1 to 6 had filed Ex. P. No. 5 of 1986 before the Munsiff Court, Anekal.3. It is submitted that while settlement negotiations were going on in the execution proceedings, the Trial Court attached the immovable property of ...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Varghese Cheeran Vs. Smt. Rosy Kurian Kannaikal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC107; ILR2000KAR1771; 1999(6)KarLJ598
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (in short 'the Act') against the judgment and decree dated 5th December, 1998 passed by the Family Court, Bangalore, in M.C. No. 648 of 1994 dissolving the marriage between the contesting parties under the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (in short, 'the Divorce Act').2. On the other hand, the Family Court in purported compliance to Section 17 of the Divorce Act, has remitted the impugned decree of dissolution of marriage to this Court for confirmation by a three Judges Bench, which has been numbered as C.R.C. No. 31 of 1999.3. Under the aforesaid circumstances, it has become imperative on our part to ascertain as to whether the present appeal can be held to be maintainable because otherwise in substance it will amount to sitting in appeal against the judgment of a three Judges Bench of this Court confirming or disapproving the decree of dissolution of marriage, which will be ex f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »