Karnataka Court April 2001 Judgments
National Insurance Company Limited, Mangalore Vs. Abdul Majeed and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC59; 2002ACJ1497; [2001(91)FLR1]; ILR2001KAR4544; 2002(2)KarLJ430
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and Labour Commissioner, Mangalore, dated 2-5-2000 passed in case No. WCA.CR. 41 of 1998. The first respondent (workman) is engaged by the second respondent-employer. Appellant is the insurance company. I would be referring to them as per their status before the Commissioner.2. Workman-petitioner filed a petition under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act seeking for compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (for short the 'Commissioner') against the respondent-employee. His case was that he was working as a driver with the employer. He was driving the lorry TATA 407 bearing No. KA 20/287 belonging to the employer. He was getting a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as. salary. On 11-4-1998 at about 7.30 A.M. as per the instruction of his employer he was driving the said vehicle from Chick-magalore to Mangalore in the course of his employment. When the...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Malleshappa Vs. Koratagere B. Shivalingappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant384; ILR2001KAR3988; 2001(4)KarLJ431
ORDER1. The appellant herein filed a suit for partition and separate possession of one-fifth share in the plaint schedule properties and consequential reliefs in O.S. No. 41 of 1992, on the file of the Civil Judge, Bhadravati. The plaintiff valued the suit for partition for the purpose of jurisdiction as Rs. 15 lakhs and valued of his one-fifth share as Rs. 3 lakhs. Plaintiff claimed that he was in joint possession of the suit properties, and paid a fixed Court fee of Rs. 200/- under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short, the 'Act'). He also paid additional Court fee of Rs. 100.00 in regard to the consequential relief of permanent injunction under Section 26(c) of the Act. In para 9 of the plaint, the plaintiff averred thus:'.....The plaintiff used to visit the native place frequently and looked after the schedule properties and in joint possession of the said properties. Plaintiff is the joint owner of all the properties morefully described...
Tag this Judgment!R.P.M. Srinivasulu and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)KarLJ118
ORDERThe Court 1. The petitioners claim to be the owners of lands bearing Sy. Nos. 76, 84, 85/1 and 86/1, measuring 5 acres 13 guntas, 1 acre 20 guntas, 4 acres 37 guntas and 6 acres 20 guntas respectively situate at Kothanur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The said lands are stated to be earmarked as part of residential zone both in 1984-Compre-hensive Development Plan and the 1995-Comprehensive Development Plan. The petitioners claim that they have got these lands converted for non-agricultural purposes. The third respondent got issued a preliminary notification bearing No. BDA/SLAD/A6/PR/229/87-88, dated 23-3-1988 published in the Karnataka Gazette on 2-6-1988 for purpose of J.P. Nagar VIII stage layout. The lands of the petitioners also were included in the said notification. The petitioners filed objections to the preliminary notification. The objections raised by the petitioners were not considered and the final notification came to be issued on 19-10-1994 vide...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras and ors. Vs. Agarwal Tra ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ184; AIR2001Kant366; 2002(1)KarLJ201
The Court1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for payment of compensation for damage caused to goods entrusted to the Indian Railways at Lucknow for carriage to Davangere, in the State of Karnataka. The claim in question was initially lodged before the Civil Judge at Davangere in O.S. No. 125 of 1984 which was upon constitution of the Railway Claims Tribunal, transferred to the Tribunal under Section 24 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The Tribunal has awarded the claim, hence the appeal.2. The claimant-respondent in this appeal is a partnership firm carrying on business as merchant and commission agents at Davangere. Two consignments comprising 180 bags of gram in each were booked on behalf of the claimant for transportation from Lucknow city to Davangere in July 1981. The consignments were a few months later delivered to the respondent-consignee at Davangere. At the time of delivery, out of the first tot of 180 bags only 1,070 Kgs. was in good condition while the remain...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Consultancy Services Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas292(Kar); (2002)176CTR(Kar)480; 2001(77)ECC694; 2001(130)ELT726(Kar); ILR2001KAR5421; [2002]257ITR710(KAR); [2002]257ITR710(Karn); 2006[2]STR386; [2007]6
Tirath Singh Thakur, J. 1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner has called in question the validity of an order dated November 18/ 24, 1999, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Bangalore,demanding payment of service tax and imposing penalties for the defaults committed by the former. A declaration to the effect that the petitioner-company is not a 'consulting engineer' within the meaning of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, so as to be liable to pay tax on the 'service' provided by it has also been prayed for, besides a certiorari quashing circular dated July 22, 1997, issued by the Ministry of Finance and referred to in Trade Notice No. 78 of 1997, dated July 4, 1997, emanating from the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore.2. The petitioner-company is a division of Tata Sons Limited engaged in the development of computer software. Upon the introduction of service tax under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, it appears to h...
Tag this Judgment!Khemka Plyland Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: [2003]129STC321(Kar)
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the appellant's learned counsel and the learned Government Advocate fully in this appeal to the extent that we have heard them on the merits both as far as the factual position and the legal position are concerned. We are satisfied after a detailed examination of the record that the finding recorded in favour of the appellants by the appellate authority which is to the effect that the requisite documents which support the view that the tax in question had been paid and that there was no illegality or irregularity committed by the appellants is perfectly sustainable. The learned Government Advocate advanced an interesting argument which we need to take note of. He was very emphatic about the fact that though every vehicle is required to stop for scrutiny at the entry check-post by the State that for a very strange reason in this particular case it appears that the vehicle got through that check-post without any scrutiny. The appellant's learned counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!Vidyavardaka Sangha, Bangalore and Another Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant329; ILR2001KAR2506; 2001(4)KarLJ444
ORDER1. These writ petitions raise a common question as to the power of the State Government to fix or regulate the collection of tuition and other fees from the pupil studying in respective schools. The Constitution of India has given unto ourselves Article 45 declaring that the State shall endeavour that education up to the age of 14 years shall be free. Apparently, in order to make this constitutional guarantee more meaningful, the Government of Karnataka after enacting the Education Act, 1983, had constituted a committee to recommend further steps to achieve the object. It is seen from W.P. No. 18061 of 2000 and connected cases the extracts from the report of that committee headed by Hon'ble Justice Chinnappa Reddy has been copiously referred to. In order to appreciate the gravity of the situation, a reference to the part of the report herein will be useful. The following part of the report has been extracted in the writ petition:'In regard to compulsory primary education, there is...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswathi Estate Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR168(KAR); [2001]251ITR168(Karn)
ORDERRevisional authority set aside order of appellate authority deleting penalty under section 22(1)(d)Catch Note:Though there was nothing coming in way of revisional authority himself exercising power to levy penalty under section 22, as he was an authority so empowered under section 22 itself--Exercise of power under section 35, for restoring order of penalty levied by an assessing authority which had been set aside erroneously by an appellate authority, is also an order well within powers and jurisdiction of revisional authority and two powers are independent of one another.Held:The concept of an order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue cannot be restricted to cases where there is actually loss of revenue in the matter of quantification of the tax liability. The very object of levy of penalty is to ensure that there is compliance with the requirement of law and the object of the Act, inevitably is the collection of revenue for the state. An order of penalty is an order whi...
Tag this Judgment!Sannidhi Agencies Vs. Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)KarLJ233
ORDERThe Court1. Heard Sri B.R. Nanjundaiah, Senior Counsel for the respondent.2. The petition filed for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 61 of 1997 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Hubli. The petitioner is the accused in a private complaint filed against him for committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A cheque was issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent which came to be bounced. After complying the statutory formalities, a private complaint is filed by the respondent. The Magistrate took cognisance, recorded the sworn statement and issued process. Being aggrieved by the order, the present petition is filed by the petitioner against the respondent.3. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that the complainant-company has now merged with Hindustan Lever Public Limited Company and, therefore, the liability incurr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Kar)122; [2002]253ITR585(KAR); [2002]253ITR585(Karn)
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners as also learned senior counsel who represents the contesting respondents, i.e., the assessees. We need to prefix this order by clarifying that the scope and jurisdiction of the High Court in a petition of the present type is extremely restricted. It needs to be borne in mind that the power of the High Court is circumscribed in the sense that the Tribunal in the first instance is required to consider as to whether a referable point of law on which the decision of the High Court is desirable arises in the case and once the Tribunal rejects the application under Section 256(1) the issue gets further narrowed down in so far as it is necessary for the Department to demonstrate that the order passed by the Tribunal was unjustified. We start by referring to this aspect of the law principally because learned senior counsel who represents the respondents did very vehemently submit that the appellate jurisdiction may ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »