Karnataka Court December 2000 Judgments
Sathish Nayak Vs. Regional Transport Authority and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant214
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. Heard Sri Puttige R. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.B. Sreenivasan assisted by Sri C.V. Kumar, learned Counsel for the second respondent and Sri B. H. Satish, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent.2. This writ petition is directed against the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Udupi Dist., Udupi (Respondent-1 herein) dated 24-11-2000 in Subject No. 69/2000-01, the copy of which is produced as Annexure-B to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction declaring that the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Udupi District, Udupi vide Annexure-B has the effect of nullifying the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 37394/1999 a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A to the Writ Petition.3. The petitioner claimed to be an operator operating stage carriage service on the strength of permit bearing No. 20/98-99 according to the petitioner is valid upto 28-6-2003. The petitioner's cas...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mysore Minerals Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Kar)11; [2001]250ITR730(KAR); [2001]250ITR730(Karn); [2001]117TAXMAN4(Kar)
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 ITA No. 2208/Bang. of 1991 dated December 22, 1998, for the assessment year 1987-88. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which allowed the claim of the assessee for investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), on earth moving equipment, crane, oil engine, pumps and machinery for a sum of Rs. 39,03,596.2. According to the Revenue, the following two substantial questions of law arise from the order of the Tribunal :'1. Whether, the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on earth moving equipment, crane, oil engine and machinery foundations for gang saws under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act ?2. Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in granting investment allowance by following the judgment of thi...
Tag this Judgment!R.L. Pinto and anr. Vs. F.F. Menzes and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant141; 2001(2)ARBLR107(Kar); ILR2001KAR3168
1. Defendants 1 and 3 being aggrieved by the decree granted by the trial Court in O.S. No. 98/87 directing the refund of the advance amount to the plaintiff have filed the appeal.2. The appellants are the husband and wife. The second appellant ts the owner of the property and the first appellant, the general power of attorney of the second appellant. The second respondent in the appeal is the second defendant in the suit, who purchased the suit property from the appellants 1 and 2 after the cancellation of contract between the appellants and the first respondent.3. The first appellant, representing to be the Power of Attorney of the second appellant, entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 1-10-1986 agreeing to sell 44.27 acres of lands spread over in different Sy. Nos. with different extents, for a sum of Rs. 22 lakhs. At the time of the agreement, an advance amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- was paid by the plaintiff in three instances, i.e., Rs. 50,000/- on 23-9-1986, Rs. 3.0...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs. Commissione ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-2000
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Kar)53; [2001]251ITR736(KAR); [2001]251ITR736(Karn); [2001]116TAXMAN411(Kar)
Ashok Bhan, J. 1. The assessee herein is a co-operative society. The assessment year involved is 1984-85 which ended with June 30, 1983. The asses-see filed its return of income disclosing nil income after claiming relief under Sections 80P(2)(a) and 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). The assessing authority completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act holding that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The assessee's income was computed under three heads, income from house property, business income and income from other sources. Income from these three sources was calculated as :Rs.I. Income from house property 4,69,532II. Business income :(a) From fertiliser section as returned by theassessee (eligible for deduction under Section80P) 16,06,690(b) From pesticide formulation section (not eligible for Section 80P deduction) 7,07,800(c) Loss from pesticide, trading section (-) Rs. 6,95,808Less : Provision for time barred pesticid...
Tag this Judgment!T. Siddeshi Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant297; ILR2001KAR488
ORDERThe Court 1. The petition filed seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 11-9-2000 at Annexure-K the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 20-10-1997 at Annexure-G and order of the Tahsildar dated 6-6-1995 at Annexure-F.2. The dispute pertains to the entry of katha in respect of survey No. 97/IA-5 of Davanagere Village, measuring 1 acre 05 guntas. The land earlier part of survey No. 97 belonged to the father of the petitioner, who in the year 1970 is said to have sold the land by a registered sale deed in favour of the partnership firm of Adinarayana Setty and sons. The 4th respondent is son of Adinarayana Setty one of the partners of the firm. Subsequent to the sale, the name of Adinarayana Setty and sons came to be entered into katha registers.3. It is the contention of the petitioner that, despite the sale, the possession of the land continued with them and that in the year 1983 when the first photo took place, the name of the fathe...
Tag this Judgment!Kamala Vs. Management of Yemmegundie Estate and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR658]; ILR2001KAR1031; (2002)IVLLJ565Kant
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. In this Writ Petition the petitioner Kamala seeks to set aside the award of the Labour Court dated September 28, 1995 rejecting the reference and holding that the management is justified in deciding the services of the petitioner Kamala from September 6, 1982.2. The petitioner was employed by the Management and her services were terminated with effect from September 6, 1982. She claimed that she had put in service of 27 years; a quarter was provided to her husband Kunjanna Maistry and she was asked to vacate the said quarter after the demise of her husband. Earlier her husband was dismissed and that dismissal was pending enquiry before the Labour Court in particular the vacation of the quarter during the pendency of the dispute was assailed. It is claimed that the petitioner was pressurised by the first respondent to withdraw the dispute. But the petitioner did not agree for the same. An industrial dispute was raised and the dispute was referred to by the o...
Tag this Judgment!North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. S.D. Ghatage
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC652; ILR2001KAR922; (2002)IVLLJ561Kant
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the learned advocates on both sides. This case has necessitated certain further innovations in the type of reliefs which the Court should grant in cases of the present type. The petitioner is the North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation and has assailed the validity of an award of the Labour Court dated December 14, 1999. The respondent employee was a driver with the Corporation at the relevant time and it was alleged that he was driving Bus No. MYF 8731 which had entered the Hubli Bus-stand on September 9, 1989 and that an injury was caused to a passenger who was attempting to board the bus. The injury turned out to be fatal. The Corporation's version is that the driver was rash and negligent while maneuvering the bus inside the bus-stand whereas the defence pleaded by the employee is of some significance. It was his version which was borne out by two defence witnesses that there was virtually a m...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. Badappanavar and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)KarLJ236
ORDER1.Leave granted.2. These appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 24115 and 24116 of 1996 (hereinafter called the 'main batch') are directed against the judgment of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated 20-11-1996 in Application Nos. 2756 and 4849 of 1996. The Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11218 of 2000 is directed against an interlocutory order dated 11-4-2000 in R.P. No. 240 of 2000 filed by the State of Karnataka staying an earlier order passed by the Karnataka High Court in W.P. Nos. 45205 to 45210 of 1999 on 11-1-2000, directing disposal of a representation to be filed by the general candidates seeking implementation of the recent judgment of this Court in Ajit Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others. That is how these cases have come before us.3. The facts in the main batch of civil appeals are as follows:In a group of OAs filed before the Tribunal, the basic contention raised by the applicants (appellants in this Court) who were general candidates was...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Enterprises Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR268; 2001(4)KarLJ130
P.V. Reddi, J. 1. Aggrieved by the Special Demand Notice dated 25-1-1992 issued under Section 147 of Schedule III, Part 11(9) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') demanding property tax of Rs. 4,12,617-25 with effect from 1-10-1991 the appellant preferred a revision before the concerned authority. The concerned authority of the Corporation declined to interfere with the impugned notice. Thereupon, an appeal was filed to the Taxation and Appeals Committee of the Corporation. That appeal was rejected by a cryptic order. Thereupon, appellant preferred a further appeal to the District Judge in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 105 of 1998. The learned VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore by an order dated 17-6-2000 rejected the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the entire tax levied has not been paid. The appellant then preferred a writ petition in W.P. No. 25531 of 2000. By an order dated 30-8-2000, the learned Single Judge dismi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›