Karnataka Court October 2003 Judgments
B.G. Devaraju Vs. M.R. Chandrashekara and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-2003
Reported in: I(2006)ACC619; 2005ACJ2113; ILR2003KAR5159; 2004(1)KarLJ427
Ramesh, J.1. Heard. Admit. 2. By consent of learned Counsel, the matter was heard on merits and is being disposed of by this judgment,3. The findings of the Tribunal that the appellant had suffered certain injuries in a motor accident that occurred on 11.6.1996 and that the said accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maxicab bearing No. KA-11/2112 are not disputed by the respondents in this appeal.4. On the contentions urged by learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the two questions that fall for determination in this appeal are:i) Whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? ii) Whether the Tribunal had erred in law in dismissing the claim against the owner and Insurer of the vehicle (R1 and R2 herein) on the mere ground that the vehicle was not driven by its owner or his driver?5. Re-quantum:I have perused the impugned judgment and the record of the Tribunal. The claimant/appellant had suffered fractures of the right fore arm, the right w...
Tag this Judgment!Shanbhag Restaurant Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Kar)318; ILR2004KAR567; [2004]266ITR393(KAR); [2004]266ITR393(Karn)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. The assessee is the appellant in this appeal. In this appeal filed under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dt. 22nd Sept., 2000, a copy of which has been produced as Annex-A to this appeal made in ITA Nos. 941 and 943/Bang/1995 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal')2. Facts of this case are very brief, which may be stated as hereunder;The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a partnership firm carrying on restaurant business. For the asst. yr. 1991-92 i.e., the year ending 31st March, 1991, the assessee filed its return of the income on 27th Aug., 1991, admitting the income of Rs. 1,09,310 (Rupees one lakh nine thousand three hundred ten only). The said assessment was taken up for scrutiny by the AO and during the course of the scrutiny if was found that there was certain credit bala...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. B.C. Srinivas and ors. Vs. Dr. N.M. Prasad and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1182
S.R. Nayak, J All these writ appeals are directed against the common judgment and Order dated 28th December, 2001 passed in W.P.Nos. 32531 of 2001; 27812 of 2001 and 28198 of 2001;, WA.Nos. 669 and 671 of 2002 are filed by the fifth respondent in W.P.No. 32531 of 2001; W.A Nos. 336-338 of 2002 by Respondent No. 15 in W.P.No. 32531 of '2001; WA No. 318 of 2002; W.A Nos. 665 and 666 of 2002 are by Respondent Nos. 20, 17 and 16 in W.P.No. 32531 of 2001 respectively; W.A No. 674 and 675 of 2002 by Respondent No. 7 and 8 respectively; W.A.No. 744 of 2002 by Respondent No. 10 in W.P.No. 32531 of 2002. The dispute brought before the Court relates to selection and appointment to the posts of Assistant Professor in Cardiology and Cardio-Thoracic Surgery.2. The facts of the case in brief may be noted first and they are as follows: The Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute') established in Bangalore is said to be a premier Institute in the field and it was es...
Tag this Judgment!Sharanappa Deceased by His Lrs. and ors. Vs. Sumitrabai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3605
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The first respondent and the subject matter in these appeals are different but the appellant is the same. The facts and the questions of law involved are similar. Common evidence is let-in in both the cases. Apart from the two appeals now under consideration, the appellant had filed RSA 206/97 and RSA 207/97. All these appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 21/87 and O.S. No. 59/86 on the file of Munsiff Kustagi.2. For convenient discussion, the respondents hereinafter called plaintiffs and the appellant as defendant.3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction, in alternative seek relief of possession of the suit property from the appellant/defendant. The plaintiffs claim to be the absolute owners of the suit property and allege that the defendant is illegally interfering with their possession and enjoyment. Hence, the suit.4. The defendant sets up a counter claim in both the suits seek relief of specific perform...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Loka-shikshana Trust and anr. Vs. K. Srirangachar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2875
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. Though these matters are listed in preliminary hearing, by consent of both the parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal and disposed of by this order.2. The respondent joined the services of the petitioner on 17.5.1988 as a workman. From 31.3.1990 he was treated as a permanent employee. On 9.4.1990 he was promoted from the post of printer to the post of supervisor. His services were terminated on 7.11.1996. He was working as Assistant Production Manager. He raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. He contended that the domestic enquiry conducted against him was not fair and proper. Even on merits he contended that the misconduct is not proved. The petitioner-management filed the statement of objections contending that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper. Secondly it was contended that the respondent is not a workman and therefore the application is not ma...
Tag this Judgment!Magundappa and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Commissioner, Depar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4613; 2004(1)KarLJ423
Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioners who are Chairman and Secretary of 'Yenne Beeja Belegarara Sahakari Sangha, Niyamita, Kendur', are before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing the Notification dated 05.04.2003 bearing No. NA.E.06.NA.MA.NI-2003 on the file of 1st Respondent at Annexure 'H', nominating the Respondents 3 to 5 to the 2nd Petitioner/Society.2. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are represented by Sri M.Keshava Reddy, learned Govt. Pleader. Respondents 3 to 5 are represented by Sri F.V. Patil.3. The learned Counsels for the parties submitted arguments for final disposal.4. In this petition, the Society has challenged the Government nominating Respondents 3 to 5 under Section 29 of the Co-operative Societies Act, to the Petitioner/Society as Directors.5. It is the case of the petitioner/Society that it has not received any share capital or loan or grant or guarantee for repayment of loan or interest from the Government and there...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Cement Companies Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR5048; [2004]136STC442(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.IA. dated 21.8.2003 filed by the petitioner for amendment is allowed. Petitioner is to amend the petition.Petitioner/company aggrieved by an order dated 24-9-2002, (Annexure-S) issued by the Commissioner for Industrial Development & Director of Industries and Commerce, the decision taken at the 74th State Level Committee Meeting held on 2-8-2002 (Annexure-T), and the demand notice dated 12.11.2002 (Annexure-V), is before me seeking for a writ of certiorari in this petition. A writ of mandamus is sought for by the petitioner to respondents thereby directing the respondents to continue to grant the benefit in terms of the original certificate issued to the petitioner/ company. The facts in brief are as under;1.1. Petitioner is a cement industry and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cement at its factory at Wadi, situated in Karnataka State. Petitioner has a capacity of producing only 4 lakh MT of cement. There was acute power shortage in Karnataka leading to ...
Tag this Judgment!Konkan Railway Corporation Limited Vs. Special Land Acquisition Office ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR231; 2004(1)KarLJ210
ORDER1. In these appeals filed against the order of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mangalore, in proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the respondent-landowner has raised a two-fold preliminary objection; one touching the maintainability of the appeal and the other, the liability of the appellant to pay Court fee. Mr. R. Vijaya Kumar, Counsel appearing for the landowner strenuously argued that the appellar, did not have an unqualified right to file an appeal against the judgment of the Reference Court and that even if any such right is conceded in his favour, the same could be exercised only after obtaining the leave of this Court. Alternatively, he argued that in an appeal preferred by the beneficiary of an acquisition also, Court fee was payable on the amount representing the difference between the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and that awarded by the Reference Court. The appellant had not, it was contended by Mr. Kumar, paid the req...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. the GraIn Merchants Co-op. Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4977; [2004]267ITR742(KAR); [2004]267ITR742(Karn)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In these appeals, the appellants have called in question the correctness of the order dated 15th January 201 made in ITAs No. 761, 762 and 763/Bang/1993 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'] holding that-(1) the income received by the respondent by letting out the premises belonging to it; and (2) the interest received out of the funds deposited in Reserve Bank and other banks are exempted from payment of tax in terms of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. The assessments relate to the years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92.2. Facts in brief, which may be relevant for disposal of these appeals, may be stated as follows:The Respondent is the Grain Merchant Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the Assessee'), engaged in banking activity. The assesses filed its return for the Assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. The assessing Office...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd. Vs. Soukar T. Premnath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR98
ORDERRangavittalachar, J.1. This is a tenants Writ Petition questioning the jurisdiction of civilCourt to entertain a suit for possession filed by the landlord. 2. Facts in brief are: Petitioner is a tenant in respect of shop premises bearing No. 355/ 2 situate at Old Statute Square in Mysore on a monthly rent of Rs. 120., measuring more than 14 sq. mtrs. of built up area and the respondent is its owner. Respondent filed a suit for possession against him before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Mysore. When the suit was in progress, petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the written statement by taking up a plea viz., 'that having regard to the annual rental value of the leased premises and also the mesne profits claimed by the plaintiff being below Rs. 25,000/-, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit; the plaintiff should have instituted the suit before the Court of Small Causes'. Trial Judge rejected the applicat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »