Karnataka Court January 2004 Judgments
Bangalore Education Trust Vs. Director of Income Tax (Exemption)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Kar)191; [2004]267ITR549(KAR); [2004]267ITR549(Karn)
R. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner is before me questioning the rejection order at Annex -R dt 4th Aug, 2003, issued by the respondent Petitioner states that it is a charitable trust The objects of the trust are education and medical relief Petitioner is registered under the provisions of Section 12A of the Indian IT Act, 1961 It is running an engineering college and a primary and middle school Returns are being filed Income has been held to be exempted in terms of a notification issued under Section 143 of the Act Petitioner was granted exemption under Section 80G in the year 1996 It was in force till 2000 as per Annex -D Petitioner thereafter made an application seeking for renewal of the same There were correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents Thereafter, the authorities have chosen to reject the case of the petitioner Petitioner is therefore before me2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record3. In the case on hand, it is seen that...
Tag this Judgment!The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Karnataka State Roa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2497; 2004(3)KarLJ238; (2004)IILLJ891Kant; (1999)2LLN16
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. Since both the appeals are directed against the common order dated 11th September, 2000 made in Writ Petition Nos. 14636 and 15701 of 1998 by the learned Single Judge, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 6347 of 2000 is the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). The said writ appeal is directed against the order made in Writ Petition No. 15701 of 1998. The 1st respondent in the said writ appeal is the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Staff and Workers' Federation represented by its General Secretary (hereinafter referred to as 'the Federation'). The Federation is the appellant in Writ Appeal Nos. 1005 and 1006 of 2001 and the Corporation is the 1st respondent. The said appeals are directed against the order made in Writ Petition No. 14636 of 1998.3. The facts in brief are as hereunder:The workmen employed in the B.T.S. Divis...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Venkataswamy Reddy Vs. Bangalore University Jnana Bharathi, Rep. by ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1063
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner Y. Venkatawamy Reddy is challenging an endorsement dated 6.11.2001 issued by the respondent No. 1 in terms of Annexure-B by issue of a writ of certiorari. Petitioner also seeks a mandamus to pay to the petitioner salary, allowance and increments in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700 from 2.9.1998 till 31.12.1995 and in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-183000 from 1.1.1996 and onwards, with interest at 18 per cent per annum.2. Facts in brief are as under:Petitioner is holding a degree in B.E. in Mechanical Engineering conducted by the University. He joined the services of the University as Laboratory Assistant by direct recruitment in 1972. He passed his M.E. degree examination securing first class in 1990. University has made a statute governing admission to various posts in the University Vishweshwaraiah College of Engineering and the Central College. In terms of the statute, qualifications and minimum experience is prescribed. Mode of appointment for the post...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Education Trust Vs. Director of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN423(Kar)
ORDERPetitioner is before me questioning the rejection order at Annexure R dated 4-8-2003 issued by the respondent. Petitioner states that it is a charitable trust. The objects of the trust are education and medical relief. Petitioner is registered under the provisions of section 12A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. It is running an Engineering College and a Primary and Middle School. Returns are being filed. Income has been held to be exempted in terms of a notification issued under section 143 of the Act. Petitioner was granted exemption under section 80G in the year 1996. It was in force till 2000 as per Annexure-D. Petitioner thereafter made an application seeking for renewal of the same. There were correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents. Thereafter, the authorities have chosen to reject the case of the petitioner. Petitioner is, therefore, before me.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.3. In the case on hand, it i...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Vinayaka Dev Idagunji and ors. Vs. Shivaram and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2125; 2004(2)KarLJ460
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This revision is by the defendants questioning the findings recorded on Issues 24, 25, 26, 29 and 30 in the negative in O.S. No. 10 of 2001 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Honnavar, dated 27-8-2001.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The plaintiffs claiming to be the hereditary Archaks from time immemorial and have been performing their duties called 'Poojapali'. This practice has been in vogue since ancient times, consistent with the custom. The plaintiffs' family have been exercising their right continuously, peacefully, openly and reasonably to the knowledge of all without protest or obstruction. This has moral and legal recognition apart from that of the public. This is a religious mandate and a question of right Purohit being a symbolic Sacred Fire is 'the leader' and not the servant as the niruktha and etimological interpretation and origin go. His duty is to secure the individual devotees 'Adhi Bhautika', 'Adhi D...
Tag this Judgment!Sangappa Vs. the Assistant Commissioner and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1102; 2004(2)KarLJ567
ORDER1. The petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing the notice dated 12-1-2004 bearing No. VPC/CR-18/2003-04 (Annexure-A) on the file of the first respondent.2. Respondent 1 is represented by Sri H.B. Narayan, learned High Court Government Pleader.3. Notice to respondent 2 is dispensed with.4. Heard the arguments for final disposal.5. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner may be stated as under.--The petitioner is the President of the second respondent-Grama Panchayat, which consists of 14 members and the petitioner was elected as president on 21-12-2002. It is the case of the petitioner that impugned notice at Annexure-A was served on him on 14-1-2004, whereby convening a special meeting on 29-1-2004 at 3.00 p.m. for moving no confidence motion against the petitioner. The impugned notice is challenged on the following grounds.-- (a) The impugned notice is not in accordance with Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha and...
Tag this Judgment!Jayhind Engineering, Unit-i and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR1156]; ILR2004KAR1852; 2004(3)KarLJ26; (2004)IILLJ744Kant
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The appellants in these appeals were the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 36102 and 36103 of 1997. In these appeals the appellants have called in question the correctness of the order dated 20th March, 1999 made by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions.2. Facts in brief leading to these writ appeals, may be stated as hereunder:The first appellant-Jayhind Engineering [hereinafter referred to as the Appellant-Firm] is a registered partnership firm and it has set up one of its factories, which is known as Unit-I at Industrial Estate, Udyambag, Belgaum. In Unit-I of the Appellant-Firm, there are seven separate sections. Crankshaft Light Bay and Development Sections are the two out of the seven sections in the factory. It is claimed by the Appellant-Firm that each section is separate; the activities of each section are independent and there is no inter-dependability between each of the section and the workmen of each section are exclusive and if any one...
Tag this Judgment!Wg. Cdr. Dr. Anil Roy Vs. Shantesh Gureddi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ467
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. This revision by the tenant is directed against the order dated 7th October, 2003 passed by the II Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in H.R.C. No. 75 of 2001. The Court below allowed the petition filed by the landlord under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('the Rent Act' for short) and ordered eviction of the tenant from the petition premises. The petition under Section 27(2)(a) of the Rent Act has been dismissed. No revision is preferred by the landlord against the said dismissal.2. For the sake of convenience advertence to the parties is made, in the course of this order, with reference to their rank in the Court below.3. The petition premises belonged to one Dr. C.V.P. Verma from whom the petitioner purchased the property. After purchase the petitioner filed the petition in the Court below contending that he is a residing in a tenanted premises and he requires the petition premises for his own self-occupation. He further averre...
Tag this Judgment!K. Susheela Vs. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1542
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8-9-2003 bearing No. D.C.A (DHA) PR/5649/2002-2003 (Annexure-J) on the file of the Second Respondent.2. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are represented by the learned Standing Counsel Sri. T. Jayaprakash Respondent No. 3 is represented by the learned Counsel Sri. G. Chandrashekharaiah.3. The learned Counsels for the parties submitted that the Writ Petition itself may be disposed. Therefore, heard arguments for final disposal.4. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner may be stated as under;The property bearing No. 6 in Sy. No. 47 situated in Byrasandra village, 57/60th Division of Bangalore City Corporation, measuring 40' x30' was purchased by the petitioner under a Registered Sale Deed dated 7-8-1998 from one S.A. Lakshman and since then the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and the katha also was transferred in favour of the petitioner as per the endorsement dated 16.8.1999 (Anne...
Tag this Judgment!J.M. Mohammed Shafiulla Vs. M. Abdul Zahir
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3213; ILR2004KAR1569; 2004(5)KarLJ622
ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J.1. The petitioner herein is the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 18/2003 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Molalkalmur. That case was registered on a petition filed by the present respondent claiming to be the president of the Managing Committee of Masjid-e-Rahamaniya of Molakalmur. It is stated that by order dated 23-05-2002 issued by the Karnataka State Wakfs Board, this petitioner was removed from the post of Muthuvalidar and that the respondent herein was appointed in that vacancy. The present respondents contention was that despite intimation to this petitioner, the latter was not handing over the records, accounts and cash belonging to the concerned Wakf. On the said petition, the sworn statement of the present respondent was recorded by the learned Magistrate and after perusing the records he passed an order on 07-4-2003 for registration of a miscellaneous case against the present petitioner and directed for issue of notice to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »