Karnataka Court February 2000 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shiva and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR767(KAR); [2001]250ITR767(Karn); [2001]119TAXMAN597(Kar)
T.N. Vallinayagam, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising' out of its order dated February 23, 1998, in respect of the assessment year 1987-88 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in taw in holding that 'kist' is neither 'duty nor tax' and therefore, will not come within the purview of the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee, a partnership firm, was carrying on the business of arrack contract for Perriyapatna Taluk. The Assessing Officer considered the debit of Rs. 28,01,135 to the trading account representing kist payable for the year ended June 30, 1986. He observed that the above amount included provision of Rs. 9,86,290 which was kist that was due for the year ended June 30, 1986. The Assessing Officer was of the view that with effect from April 1, 1984, any sum that is payable by the assessee by...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. S.D. Narayansa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Kar)366; ILR2000KAR2553; [2000]244ITR593(KAR); [2000]244ITR593(Karn)
T.N. Vallinayagam, J. 1. The arguments of learned standing counsel for the Department are heard. 2. In this petition, a prayer is made to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following question of law arising out of its order dated April 3, 1998. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in directing the Assessing Officer for valuation of the property as per Schedule III whereas such Schedule is effective from April 1, 1989, so applicable for the assessment year 1989-90 ?' 3. The reference application under Section 27(1) was rejected on the ground that the controversy is covered by the decision given in the case of CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup and Sons : 1995ECR425(SC) and also the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CWT v. Sunder Lal Gupta . 4. The dispute in the present matter pertains to the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89. Schedule III was inserted in the Wealth-tax Act, w...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Krishnan Vs. S. Ravichandra and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant254; 2000(3)KarLJ280
Acts/Rules/Orders:Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 2 and 34Cases Referred:Banwarilal Aggarwal and Others v. Subhas Gupta, MFA No. 974 of 1994;National Small Industries Corporation Limited, New Delhi v. M/s. Punjab Tin Printing and Metal Industries, Ajraunda and Others, AIR 1979 Del. 58;Jammu Forest Company v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1969 J and K 86JUDGEMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23-8-1995 passed by the XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 423 of 1995 allowing I.A. II filed by the respondent under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.2. The appellant and the respondents are the partners. The appellant-plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction. Before filing the written statement, the respondents-defendants have filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 stating that both the appellant and the respondents are party to the agreement to be referred to the Arbitration in the event of any dispute. Taking the...
Tag this Judgment!J. Alexander Vs. Central Bureau of Investigatin, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1418; 2000(3)KarLJ628
ORDER1. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 27-1-1999 passed by the Special Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore, ordering for framing of charges against the petitioner (accused 1) in Special C.C. No. 134 of 1994 for the offences under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short the 'PC Act').2. The facts as per the prosecution case necessary for consideration of the revision petition are as follows: During the relevant period the petitioner (accused 1) was the Additional Chief Secretary and Finance Commissioner to the Government of Karnataka. Accused 2 (not a party in this petition) was the then Chief Minister of Karnataka and accused 3 to 6 (not parties in this petition) were alleged to be the conspirators and beneficiaries of the criminal conspiracy. According to the prosecution in the year 1992 accused 3 (V. Gokulkrishna) representing himself as the Proprietor/Director of M/s. Classik Co...
Tag this Judgment!Rasool Sheriff Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3315; 2000(4)KarLJ253
1. This first appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 24-6-1996 passed by Sri A. Mohan Ram, XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 1762 of 1990 (Rasool Sheriff alias Basha v Bangalore Development Authority, by its Commissioner). The plaintiff had claimed among others the following relief i.e., to declare the preliminary Notification No. BDA/SALAO/C4/PR(s) 131/7778. dated 19-9-1977 and final Notification No. HUD 3 MNJ 78, dated 7-2-1978 published in the Karnataka Gazette, dated 9-3-1978 as null and void and not binding. The Trial Court dismissed the suit taking the suit to be not maintainable for the declaration of nullity sought against the notification of acquisition in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v Dhirendra Kumar and Others. The plaintiff having felt aggrieved from the dismissal of the suit has come up in appeal.2. I have heard Sri Purushothama Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri N.K....
Tag this Judgment!Telecom District Manager, Belgaum Vs. A.A. Angali and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR97]; ILR2000KAR2963; 2000(6)KarLJ327; (2000)IILLJ1433Kant
1. These intra-Court appeals are directed against the order dated 16-9-1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 30044 of 1999 and connected cases modifying the judgment and award dated 21-6-1999 by directing reinstatement without back wages as against reinstatement with 50% back wages passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal.2. It is not in dispute that the respondents-workmen were employed by the Telecom Department as casual labourers in connection with extension of telephone facilities in the district of Belgaum. Their services had been utilised for digging, laying of coaxial cable and other sundry works. It is also not in dispute that the said project had been completed long back some time in the year 1986-87. As found by the learned Single Judge, after a lapse of 7 to 9 years, disputes were referred to the Tribunal to ascertain as to whether termination of the services of the workmen in question was justified and legal.3. Though there appears to be some dispute about th...
Tag this Judgment!Asthan-e-khadri Trust, Bangalore and Others Vs. Karnataka State Board ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR801; 2001(2)KarLJ509
ORDER1. The legal representatives of the late Khaleefa Abdul Khader, who claim to have absolute right, title and interest in the Wakf Institution -- Asthane-Khadria, which is a notified Wakf Institution, are before this Court in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution calling in question the legality or otherwise of the notification issued by Karnataka State Board of Wakfs in No. KBW.CMC.14.BNU.97-98, dated 17-7-1997 in taking over the Wakf Asthane-Khadria and its movable and immovable properties under its direct management in exercise of its power under Section 65 of the Wakf Act, 1995, with immediate effect and the consequential order made in appointing an administrator to manage the affairs of the Wakf Institution and its properties. The impugned notification of the Board is as under:'Karnataka State Board of WakfsSub: Appointment of Administrator for the management of 'Asthane-Khadria', Jayamahal Road, Dargah Compound, Bangalore - 560 006.Read: 1. Letter dated 1st...
Tag this Judgment!The Devisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR250]; ILR2000KAR1326; 2000(3)KarLJ53
ORDER1. The writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties.2. The K.S.R.T.C. is the petitioner. The petitioner-management has preferred this writ petition challenging the award passed by the Labour Court at Annexure-E. By the said award the Labour Court set aside the dismissal of the respondent and granted full back wages with continuity of service. Aggrieved by this, the management has preferred this writ petition.3. The respondent was a driver under the petitioner-Corporation. On 1-11-1996 around 15-30 hours the driver caused an accident which claimed the life of a pedestrian. The left side of the bumper hit the pedestrian who sustained grievous injuries and was rushed to the Government Hospital, Yemmiganoor, where he succumbed to his injuries.4. Thereafter articles of charges were issued to him, which are asfollows:(1) That on 1-11-1996 while you were performing the scheduled duties on route No. 8/9 from Bangalore to Lingasugur via Mantralayam in the Bus No. KA 36/F 191, you ...
Tag this Judgment!Lahari Recording Company Private Limited, Bangalore Vs. Sourabh Market ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR5057; 2001(4)KarLJ78
ORDER1. Petitioner-M/s. Lahari Recording Company Private Limited, Bangalore, is defendant in O.S. No. 8125 of 1998, and respondent-M/s. SourabhMarketing and Agencies Private Limited is the plaintiff therein. They are hereinafter referred according to their position in the said suit which is pending on the file of the Trial Court.2. The Trial Court's order dated 1-9-1999 made in O.S. No. 8125 of 1998 rejecting defendant's application i.e., I.A. No. I, filed under Order 7, Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' in short) with costs is called in question in this revision. The said application was filed praying to dismiss the plaintiffs suit as its institution in the Civil Court and the jurisdiction of the Court below to try the same is barred by the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 ('the Act' in short).2-A. Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC contemplates rejection of plaint on certain grounds. The relevant clause (d) of Order VII, Rule 11 reads:'11. Rejecti...
Tag this Judgment!D.B. Avalakki and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: II(2000)ACC764; 2001ACJ1258; AIR2000Kant269; ILR2000KAR1613; 2000(4)KarLJ237
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13-10-1998 passed in T.A. No. 4 of 1997 on the file of Railways Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the parents of one Prafulla, who had died in a Railway Accident which took place on 16-11-1988. The appellants have approached this Court for enhancement of compensation.2. The Tribunal, on the basis of the material placed before it, has found that the deceased, who was travelling from Belgaum to Mysore by Kittur Express, had died because of derailment of the said train on 16-11-1988. Accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation but without ordering for payment of any interest. Theamount has been quantified as per the provisions contained in Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (in short the 'Old Act') and the rules framed thereunder.3. According to the appellants, the Tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation since d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »