Karnataka Court October 2003 Judgments
Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ramesh B. JaIn and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ677; ILR2003KAR5164; 2004(1)KarLJ456
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. These Miscellaneous First Appeals are filed by the insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, calling in question the common judgment and award dated 22.4.2003 passed in MVC Nos. 2942 and 2687/1997 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, (SCCH No. 7), Bangalore ('MACT' for short).2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are:One Roopesh Jain was riding Kinetic Honda bearing registration No. KA-02-L-5543 and Ramesh Jain was the pillion rider. On 20.4.1997, at about 11.20 p.m., on M.G. Road, near Spencer Building, a Tempo bearing certificate of Registration No. KA-05-745 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Kinetic Honda, by which the rider and the pillion sustained grievous injuries. Roppesh Jain, the rider was declared dead on arrival to the hospital, while Ramesh Jain, the pillion rider was admitted to St. Marthas Hospital. The Cubbon Park police charge sheeted the driver of the te...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs. Karnataka State Government Daily ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR853]; ILR2004KAR1619; (2004)IIILLJ164Kant
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.1. The Appellant in this appeal was the petitioner in the Writ Petition. In this appeal, the appellant has called in question the correctness of the Order dated 19th September 2000 made in the Writ Petition No. 15020 of 2000 by the learned Single Judge confirming the order dated 29th October 1999 made in I.D.(LCM) No. 64/94 by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and back wages from the date of termination of service till the date of reinstatement with all consequential benefits.2. The facts in brief are as follows:The Appellant in this Appeal is the Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department. The respondent is the Karnataka State 'Government Daily Wage Employees' Federation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Federation'). The State Government, by means of its order dated 24th September 1994, was being of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the appellant and the Federation, referred the disput...
Tag this Judgment!Paragouda Chanagouda and ors. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1720
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.1. These four appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. MFA 3815/01 relates to LAC 1/90; MFA 3816/01 relates to LAC 5/90; MFA 3817/01 relates to LAC 3/90 and MFA 3818/01 relates to LAC 2/90.2. During the course of this order, the parties shall be referred toas per their rankings in the Trial Court.3. Pursuant to the preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 3.1.1985, several bits of the lands belonging to the claimants was acquired for the purpose of construction of bridge across Krishna river. In MFA 3815/01 an extent of 3 acres 5 guntas in R.S. No. 176/ 1 A & 176/1B; 0.5 guntas in R.S. No. 177/14 and 30 guntas in R.S. No. 177/2, totally measuring 4 acres; in MFA 3816/01 an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas in R.S. No. 177/7 and 5 guntas in R.S. No. 178/5, totally measuring 1 acre 8 guntas; in MFA 3817/01 an extent of 38 guntas in R.S. No. 177/5 and in MFA 3818/01 an extent of 1 acre 2 g...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vibhuti and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ769
Tirath S. Thakur, J. 1. These two appeals and the accompanying cross-objections arise out of the judgment and award made by the M.A.C.T., Ranebennur, whereby M.V.C. Nos. 294 and 295 of 1995 have been allowed in part and total amount of Rs. 5,98,520 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum awarded as compensation in the M.V.C. No. 294 of 1995 and a sum of Rs. 25,000 with interest at 6 per cent per annum granted in M.V.C. No. 295 of 1995. While the insurance company has assailed the awards in M.F.A. Nos. 3239 and 3240 of 1998, the respondents-claimants have in M.F.A. No. 3239 of 1998 filed cross-objections praying for a suitable enhancement of the compensation awarded in their favour.2. On 7.1.1992, the deceased Milind Padhye accompanied by his wife and two minor daughters was travelling in an Ambassador car bearing registration No. MH 10-A 18 from Miraj to Bangalore. The car in question was registered as a taxi and was owned by the respondent Dutta Distributor Pvt. Ltd. It was ...
Tag this Judgment!Sterling's MAC Fast Food Vs. MC Donald's Corporation, Rep. by Its Pah ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2893; 2004(4)KarLJ612; 2005(30)PTC417(Karn)
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.1.The defendant in O.S. No. 11413/1998, on the file of XIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore has filed this appeal challenging the order on I.A.I. dated 16/08/2001.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in their respective ranks before the Trial Court.3. The plaintiffs have filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its partners, agents, servants, employees, assigns and representatives from in any way using and advertising, directly or indirectly the word MAC as a trade mark or part of its trading style or any other name similar thereto in relation to its business/ goods, so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the defendants business and goods as and for the business and goods of the plaintiffs; They have sought for similar injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's registered trade mark/name 'McDonald's' and 'BIG MAC' or from using any other name similar thereto as a ...
Tag this Judgment!Weizmann Homes Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Kar)440; [2004]265ITR601(KAR); [2004]265ITR601(Karn)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. These petitions are directed against an order of the CBDT dt. 3rd May, 2000, (Annex.-K) and for a prayer to direct the CBDT to accord approval to the petitioner under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) for the asst. yrs. 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98.2. Petitioner, a limited company, carries on the business of providing long-term finance for construction or purchase of houses in India for residential purposes. Petitioner commenced business during the end of 1994 and its first year of business ended on 31st March, 1995. Petitioner has filed a memorandum and articles of association in terms of Annex.-A with regard to its business of providing long-term finance for construction or purchase of houses in India for residential purposes.3. The IT Act provides for substantial concession in terms of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act with regard to special reserve created and maintained by a public limited company founded and registered in India with t...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Upadhya Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4811
ORDERBhakthavatsala, J. 1. The petitioner who is the Chief Promoter of the proposed 'Kannada Career Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha', is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing the impugned orders Annexure 'D' dated 21.2.2003 and Annexure 'C' dated 16.4.2002 both on the file of Respondent No. 1 and Annexure 'B' dated 3.1.2003 on the file of Respondent No. 2 and for direction to the Respondent No. 2 to register the proposed 'Sahakari Niyamitha'.2. The Respondents 1 and 2 are represented by Sri M. Keshava Reddy, learned Govt. Pleader.3. Heard arguments for final disposal.4. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner may be stated as under:The petitioner is the elected Chief Promoter of the proposed 'Kannada Career Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha' ( in short 'Sahakari Niyamitha'). The petitioner made an application as per Annexure 'A' to the Respondent No. 2 as per Section 4 of the Act, for registration of the same. The Respondent No. 2 h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mamta Enterprises
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Kar)414; [2004]266ITR356(KAR); [2004]266ITR356(Karn)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. This reference is made under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue out of the order dated July 16, 1996, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in I. T. A. No. 198/Bang of 1989. The question of law referred to this court reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the payment of the compounding fees is not a penalty for infraction of law and hence allowable ?'2. The facts in brief may be stated as hereunder :The respondent-assesses (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a builder carrying on its business in building apartments and selling the same. In the return filed by the assessee, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 89,960 paid as compounding fine to the Bangalore City Corporation as an expenditure under Section 37 of the Act. However, the...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. K.C. Arunakumara and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ4; 2004(1)KarLJ335
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act'), by the insurer calling in question the judgment and award dated 13th March, 2002 passed in M.V.C. No. 2001 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (for short, 'MACT').2. The claimant/injured while going on his bicycle from B.T.M. Layout to N.S. Palya on 28-3-1996 at about 4.15 P.M., a lorry bearing No. KA-01/6783 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and dashed against the bicycle of the claimant. The claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The driver of the lorry was prosecuted in Crime No. 498 of 1996 by the jurisdictional police.3. The claimant/injured instituted a claim petition in M.V.C. No. 2001 of 1996, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. On notice, the respondents 2-the owner of the vehicle remained absent. The respondent 1, who is appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Mamta Enterprises
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-2003
Reported in: [2004]135TAXMAN393(Kar)
ORDERVishwanatha Shetty, J.This reference is made under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of revenue out of the order dated 16-7-1996 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in ITA No. 198/Bang/1989. The question of law referred to this court reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is tight in law in holding that the payment of the compounding fees is not a penalty for infraction of law and hence allowable?'2. Facts in brief may be stated as hereunder :The respondent assessee (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) is a builder carrying on its business in building apartments and selling the same. In the return filed by the assessee, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 89,960 paid as compounding fine to the Bangalore City Corporation as an expenditure under section 37 of the Act. However, the Assessing officer disallow...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »