Karnataka Court November 2000 Judgments
Sanna Adike Belegarara Recreation Association and Others Vs. State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4822; 2001(1)KarLJ335
ORDER1. In all these writ petitions the petitioner got themselves registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 as Clubs or Recreation Associations. It is their case that the admission is restricted to the members and their guests and the club/association is catering to the socio-cultural needs of the members. It is contended that nothing but lawful activities are being carried on in the premises of the club/association and no games of chance or events of public amusement are being conducted in the premises. It is further averred that amongst the card games, only Rummy which is declared to be a game of skill by the Supreme Court in its judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh v K. Satyanarayana, is being played. In addition to such card games, it is stated that certain indoor games such as chess, carrom and badminton are allowed to be played by the members. The petitioners allege that the police authorities who are respondents herein are insisting on a licence being taken ...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Varma Industrial Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Kar)106; [2001]250ITR472(KAR); [2001]250ITR472(Karn); [2001]117TAXMAN512(Kar)
ORDERConfirmation of assessment order by Commissioner (Appeals)Catch Note:The assessing authority, for the purpose of computation of capital gains had adopted the cost of the property at Rs. 80.00 lakhs as against Rs. 96.78 lakhs claimed by the assessee--Assessee being aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)--The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the orders of the assessing authority--The Commissioner of the range, who has a co-ordinate jurisdiction as Commissioner (Appeals) initiated suo motu proceedings under section 263 of the Act for revising the order of the assessing authority--Assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner revising the order of assessment, filed an appeal before the Tribunal which has been accepted by the impugned order. The Tribunal has held that the order of the assessing authority having merged in the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction under sec...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Dr. Banu V.T. and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR2263; 2001(1)KarLJ492
ORDER1. Though these petitions are posted for preliminary hearing in 'B' group, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, these petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.2. The petitioners in these petitions are presently working as lady Medical Officers in the 5th respondent-Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation')- In these petitions, they have prayed for striking down Rule 2(h) of the Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for Admission to Postgraduate Degree and Diploma (Medical and Dental) Courses Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), as unconstitutional; or in the alternative to strike down the words 'Medical' and 'under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1961' in the said rule, as unconstitutional.3. Sri Rajeshwara, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners strongly submitted that the petitioners are working in the 5th respondent-Corporation, which is also a Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. George Ninum
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ1095; 2000(5)KarLJ213
H.N. Narayan, J.1. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the award passed by the Tribunal in a motor accident which occurred on 13-3-1994 at about 7.45 p.m., involving a car bearing No. KA 05-M 5709 and B.T.S. bus bearing No. CAT 157. The front right side portion of the said car was demaged. One Sri George Ninum represented by his Power of Attorney Holder Anwar, presented a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming damages of Rs. 50,000/- which includes the expenditure incurred for treatment of the driver of the car, the mental torture and agony and general damages suffered by the owner of the said ear. The K.S.R.T.C. has resisted the claim on three grounds, viz., that the claimant was not the owner of the said car, there was no negligence on the part of the K.S.R.T.C. driver and damages claimed are not proved. The Trial Court, however, rejected these objections and allowed the claim in part awarding a compensation of Rs. 20,000/-, the...
Tag this Judgment!Sadananda Devadiga and ors., Vs. Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1600Kant
Kumar Rajaratnam, J.1. The dispute which arises in these writ petitions between the workmen and the management could have been avoided if the management had acted with a little more alacrity.2. The facts very briefly are: The workmen of the Manipal Power Press, Manipal, filed an application before the certifying officer under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The workmen in their application sought to fix the age of retirement of the workmen at 62 years. An application was given to the certifying officer on November 25, 1996, for amendment of Clause 16(e) of the earlier Standing Orders. The earlier Standing Order was that the management in its discretion could retire from its service any workman who has completed 30 years of service or has attained the age of 55 years, whichever event occurs first. The amendment sought for by the workmen was that the age of retirement should be enhanced to 62 years. The certifying officer did ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Mysore Minerals Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Kar)145; [2001]250ITR728(KAR); [2001]250ITR728(Karn)
Ashok Bhan, J. 1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'the Tribunal'), in I.T.A No. 2262/Bang of 1991, dated March 24, 1999, under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), raising the following two questions of law stated to be substantial questions of law arising from the order of the Tribunal :'(i) Whether the activity carried on by the assessee for the purpose of extraction of granite by quarrying and cutting the same into various sizes and polishing them would amount to manufacture or production of an article or thing entitling the assessee for investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act ? (ii) Whether, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act on the entire exports of granite including finished products like slabs, monuments, tiles, etc. ?' 2. The respondent-assesses (for short, 'the a...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ganga Rao K. and Others Vs. V. Bhaskar Rao and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1026; 2000(3)KarLJ610
ORDER1. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 30-3-1999 of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udupi in F.D.P. No. 6 of 1998. Revision petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff-V. Krishna Rao in O.S. No. 91 of 1976. First respondent herein is the second defendant and applicant in F.D.P. No. 6 of 1998. Respondents 2 and 10 herein are the defendants-1 and 5 respectively. Respondents 3 to 9 are the legal representatives of the deceased defendant 4-Sarojini. Neither defendant 3 nor defendant 6 is a party to these proceedings.2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this revision may be stated thus:--Deceased Krishna Rao, second defendant Bhaskar Rao and third defendant Narayana Rao are the sons of one R. Vishnumurthy Rao who died on 18-12-1972. Defendants 4-Sarojini, 5-Leelavathi and 6-Indira S. Tantry are the daughters. First defendant Rathnavathi is their mother. It would appear that R. Vishnumur...
Tag this Judgment!Anamika and anr. Vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas401(Kar)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. For expeditious disposal of cases regarding recovery of money due to the financial institutions and the banks, Parliament of India passed an Act called the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act'). Under the Act, Debt Recovery Tribunals (for short, 'the Tribunal') were created at various levels to try the suits filed by the banks and financial institutions in which the claim was more than rupees ten lakhs. By operation of law, various cases which were pending' in different civil courts in the country were ordered to be transferred to the Tribunals.2. The second respondent-Corporation Bank (for short, 'the bank'), at Bangalore filed a suit in O. S. No. 4037 of 1989 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,76,654 against the appellants in the City Civil Court, Bangalore. Soon after the coming into force of the Act and keeping in view the mandate contained therein, the proceedings in the suit were transferred to the Tribunal which ...
Tag this Judgment!Munawar HussaIn and ors. Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ575Kant
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J. 1. The legal heirs of one Munawar Hussain have preferred this petition and they have sought to assail the correctness of an award dated July 12, 1996. The brief facts giving rise to the controversy are that the deceased-petitioner who is now represented by his legal heirs namely the wife and minor children, was appointed as a Helper on Novembers, 1971. The case made out is that he has put in approximately 13 years of service and that he had submitted his resignation on March 29, 1983 which was supported by a medical certificate making out the case that he was unfit to continue with his duties. The Corporation accepted the resignation on May 12, 1986. Long thereafter, in the year 1988 by virtue of the provisions of Section 10(4)(A) which were then incorporated on the statute book, an application was filed for setting aside the order of the Corporation accepting the resignation. The case made out was that the petitioner had by communication dated April 15, 1983 rev...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayaka Vs. Laxmanappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)KarLJ467
ORDER1.Being aggrieved by the order dated 15-3-2000 passed on I.A. XIX in O.S. No. 325 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hubli, this revision petition is preferred.2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed the application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking the permission to amend the plaint at para (e) of the prayer column.3. It is stated that the respondents 1 and 2 have instituted the suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration and consequential injunction. Now the application is filed for amendment of relief columnat para (e) stating that if the plaintiffs are not in actual possession of the suit property, a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property be allowed by holding that the plaintiffs-tenants have been illegally evicted by the first defendant-landlord.4. It is also stated that the plaintiffs are liable to pay Court fee under Section 41(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »