Karnataka Court January 2002 Judgments
S. Ujjannappa Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: [2002]255ITR455(KAR); [2002]255ITR455(Karn)
A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J. 1. The assessee has presented this appeal with a prayer to set aside the order dated April 25, 2001, passed in I. T. A. No. 863 of 1998, on the file of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, by which the Tribunal upheld the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer quantifying the income from letting out the first floor of the premises owned by the assessee at Rs. 1,74,060 and subjecting it to tax under the Act.2. The assessee is an individual owning a property at No. 380, 15th Cross, II Stage, II Phase, West of Chord Road, Bangalore. The building consisted of two floors, viz., ground and first. The assessee had filed return of income disclosing a rental income of Rs. 3,000 per month in respect of the ground floor. In respect of the first floor the assessee had not declared the annual letting value but claimed that it was mortgaged to one Harish Babu for Rs. 1,50,000 for a period of five years and he was not deriving any income fr...
Tag this Judgment!Kullegowda Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Holenarasipura, Distr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)KarLJ73
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. These appeals are filed by the claimants against the common judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court dismissing their first appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Reference Court.2. The Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 24,700/- per acre to the dry lands even though as per the sale deeds, Exs. P. 23 and P. 24 which were proved by P.W. 5-Masti Gowda and P.W. 6-Krishne Gowda it was Rs. 41,140/- per acre. The amount was reduced by l/4th on the ground that the sale consideration under those sale deeds represent higher consideration. When the Reference Court acted on the basis of the said sale deeds, in the light of the evidence adduced by P.Ws. 5 and 6, it ought not to have deducted l/4th amount. The Reference Court committed a gross error by awarding lesser compensation by deducting l/4th amount on erroneous assumption. Hence, the judgment and award of the Reference Court was bad in law.3. In the first appeal pr...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ujjannappa Vs. Cit
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Kar)239
A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.The assessee has presented this appeal with a prayer to set aside the order dated 25-4-2001, passed in ITA 863/1998 on the file of the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, by which the Tribunal upheld the assessment order passed by the assessing officer quantifying the income from letting out the first floor of the premises owned by the assessee at Rs. 1,74,060 and subjecting it to tax under the Act.2. The assessee is an individual owning a property at No. 380, 15th Cross, Stage, II Phase, West of Chord Road, Bangalore. The building consisted of two floors, viz., ground and first. The assessee had filed return of income disclosing a rental income of Rs. 3,000 per month in respect of the ground floor. In respect of the first floor the assessee had not declared the annual letting value but claimed that it was mortgaged to one Harish Babu for Rs. 1,50,000 for a period of five years and he was not deriving any income from it. The assessing officer did not accede to...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Mallesha Gowda and anr. Vs. Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR574]; ILR2002KAR875; 2002(2)KarLJ162
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.1. These writ petitions are filed against the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated 20-11-2001, whereby the Tribunal did not interfere with the impugned order of transfer dated 18-7-2001.2. It is alleged that the petitioner, K.R. Mallesha Gowda, on promotion was transferred on 26-6-2001 from Channarayapatna to Hassan along with respondents 5 and 6, but later on, on the letter of an MLA, not of that constituency, the first petitioner was again transferred to Holenarasipur on 18-7-2001 whereas, respondents 5 and 6 were brought back to the original posts.3. It is also alleged that the other petitioner, H.M. Mahesh who was working as Assistant Agricultural Officer, Watershed Development Department, Belur, came to be promoted as Agricultural Officer, Watershed Development Department, Belur, and he was relieved of his duties as Assistant Agricultural Officer and assumed charge as Agricultural Officer, Watershed Development Department on 2-7-2001.4. The peti...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Vadiraja and anr. Vs. the Managing Director, L.i.C. of India, Mum ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant113; ILR2002KAR1400; 2002(2)KarLJ213
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Petitioners are agents of the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('Corporation' for short). They are calling in question the notices issued by the respondent-Corporation invoking their powers under Regulation 17(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 ('Regulations' for short).2. Brief facts are:First petitioner is working as agent in the respondent-Corporation right from the year 1983. He got married to one Smt. B.S. Girija on 16-4-1992, who is a regular employee of the respondent-Corporation. Prior to the marriage, first petitioner requested the respondent-Corporation to give him permission to marry an employee of the Corporation, and had further requested to permit him to continue to be the agent of the respondent- Corporation. The request made by the petitioner had not been replied by the respondent-Corporation one way or the other.3. Second petitioner is also working as an agent of the respondent-Corporation right from the ye...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Majestic Exhibitors, Bangalore Vs. Muthyalu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR584]; ILR2002KAR2722; 2002(2)KarLJ289
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The management has challenged in this writ petition the order of the Labour Court allowing the application filed under Section 33-C(2) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act allowing the claim of the applicant for balance 50% of the wages. The facts in brief are us under.--2. The respondent was an employee of the petitioner and he was working as a torch boy. He was kept under suspension by an order dated 25-12-1983 which was served on him on 16-1-1984 pending an enquiry. He has been paid 50% of the wages during the period of suspension. The respondent made an application under Section 33-C(2) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act in Application No. 8 of 1995 claiming the remaining 50% of the wages on the ground that the petitioner has no right to keep him under suspension and he has no right to withhold any portion of the wages and that he is entitled to full wages for the period of suspension.3. The petitioner resisted the said claim on the ground that it has been...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Chandrakala Vs. the Kodagu Zilla Panchayat, Madikeri and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR946; 2002(2)KarLJ528
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner before this Court.2. On an earlier occasion, petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 47273 of 2001. She had questioned in the said writ petition the correctness or otherwise of the resolution passed by the Kodagu Zilla Panchayat, Madikeri, dated 10-12-2001.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had sought leave of the Court to withdraw the writ petition. Permission so requested had been granted by this Court and this Court by its order dated 3-1-2002 was pleased to dispose off the writ petition as withdrawn. However, this Court had not granted permission to the petitioner to re-agitate the matter on the same cause of action.4. An application is filed in that writ petition for modification of the earlier order dated 3-1-2002. That application was not seriously opposed by any one of the Counsels appearing for the contesting respondents. Therefore, the earlier order dated 3-1-2002 had been recalle...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Adikehole Estate and Malleshanagudda Estate, Hirebyl ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR637]; ILR2002KAR2029; 2002(2)KarLJ578; (2002)IIILLJ198Kant
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Petitioners in these writ petitions have sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 16-6-2000 passed by the Labour Court, Chickmagalur, in I.D. No. 57 of 1990 as per Annexure-B urging various grounds.2. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of D.P. Maheshwari v Delhi Administration and Ors., : (1983)IILLJ425SC , wherein the Supreme Court interpreting the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and the discretionary and supervisory powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the interlocutory orders are challenged by the employer has laid down the law at paragraph (1) to the following effect.--'We think it is better that Tribunals, particularly those entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes where delay may lead to misery and jeopardise industrial peace, should decide all issues in dispute at the same time without trying some of them ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Mahadevappa and Sons, Hubli and anr. Vs. the Dharwad District Co-op ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2009; 2002(3)KarLJ129
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J. 1. By this writ petition, a writ of mandamus is prayed:'(i) declaring the order of the third respondent in case No. CMW-36; CAP 86, dated 11-12-1990 (Annexure-J) is bad in law and void; (ii) declaring the order of the second respondent dated 2-11-1987 (Annexure-H) is bad in law and void; (iii) directing the first respondent to prosecute the claim only before the Commissioner of Payments appointed under Act as per Annexure-D, and recover monies only out of the amounts deposited under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act; (iv) for costs of these proceedings and for such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case'. 2. Annexure-H is the order of respondent 2-Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Belgaum ('R2-Registrar' in short), passed in Dispute No. B.DDS.DAM.28/1978-79, rejecting the contentions of petitioners, who were defendants therein, that the dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulisthan Shadi Mahal Trust, Bangalore Vs. the Karnataka Board of Wake ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2592; 2002(3)KarLJ115
ORDER1. Petitioner in W.P. No. 6359 of 1994 claims that it is a Public Trust and is managed by Board of Trustees. The object of the Trust seems to be to secure permanence to manage and augment its resources for the benefit of the Muslim community. It appears that in the beginning of the year 1940, public-spirited muslim residents of the city had formed a social sports club by name 'Islamic Club'. The main purpose of the club was to conduct lectures, dinner parties for the unity and harmony of the Muslim community and these activities were held in a rented bungalow situate at Promenade Road near Coles Park. Some time later, the club members purchased a house property at Old Poor House Road. Since the place was not suitable for the club, the members of the club, with the assistance of public donations and others, purchased 'Gulisthan Shadi Mahal' situate at Infantry Road for a valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 11-7-1946 in the name of 13 Managing Committee Members...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »