Karnataka Court January 2004 Judgments
Ramesh Babulal Baheti and ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: [2005]126CompCas497(Kar); 2004CriLJ2274; ILR2004KAR969; 2004(2)KarLJ435
ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J.1. In September 2001, a complaint was lodged by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the second respondent-State Bank of Mysore, Head Office, K.G. Road, Bangalore, alleging fraud and siphoning of the amounts advanced on LC facility by the Bank to the present petitioners 1, 2 and 9. It was also alleged that, that fraud was committed in connivance with certain officers of the State Bank of Mysore. On the basis of the said complaint, on preliminary verification, FIR was lodged by the C.B.I., in RC No. 2(E)/2001 -BSFC/BLR, dated 6-9-2001. It is alleged that during investigation, complicity of the present petitioners 3 to 8 in the crime was disclosed. Their names were added as accused and after further investigation, a charge-sheet was placed by the C.B.I. against the present petitioners 1 to 9. However as regards the Bank Officers, no charge-sheet was placed on the ground that no mens rea for the offences was present with regard to those persons. As regards recovery of amount...
Tag this Judgment!H.S. Indiresh Vs. N. Ravi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant156; 2004(3)KarLJ455
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner H. S. Indiresh is challenging the order dated 20-11-2003 passed in O. S. No. 192 of 1991 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Devanahalli in terms of Annexure-A.2. Respondent Ravi filed a suit for declaration of ownership and for permanent injunction in respect of the landed property bearing No. 166/2 measuring 1 acre situated at Vijayapura Kasba, Devanahalli Taluk. Petitioner was not initially impleaded and later he got himself impleaded in the suit. Suit has riped for evidence. Defendant's evidence is to be commenced. At this stage, petitioner sought permission to lead his evidence through his power of attorney holder. An application was filed and the same was rejected. Petitioner is therefore (before) me.3. Heard Sri Goutham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramamurthy H. S., learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.4. Sri Goutham, learned counsel for the petitioner essentially contends that the learn...
Tag this Judgment!B.V. Gurushanthappa Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant437; 2004(3)KarLJ87
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J.1. Petitioner is a freedom fighter having been imprisoned for participating in the freedom movement in the year 1947 (Mysore Chalo Movement). He was granted freedom fighter's pension on his application in pursuance of the Government Order No. DPAR 106 PFS 85, dated 24-2-1986. After he had drawn the pension for several years, he was served with a show-cause notice dated 2-7-2001 by the Under Secretary to the Government that he had obtained the pension by misrepresenting his age i.e., he had stated in the affidavit filed on 9-9-1985 while claiming pension that he was aged 15 years but his date of birth revealed he was born on 1-9-1936, which means during the year 1947, he was only 11 years and 1 month of age and it was improbable at that age to have participated in the freedom movement and it also ordered to suspend the payment of pension pending enquiry. Petitioner replied to the show-cause notice denying the charge. Meanwhile he also filed an application und...
Tag this Judgment!Devi and ors. Vs. Prabhakar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC870; [2004(102)FLR911]; 2004(3)KarLJ397
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The legal representatives of the deceased Sukumar Lengade have preferred this appeal under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the 'Act'), calling in question the legality and validity of the judgment dated 21-1-2002 passed in No. WCA/SR-9/2001 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Belgaum (for short, the 'Commissioner').2. Facts in brief are:One Sukumar Lengade is said to be an employee of M/s. P.I. Angadi and Commercial Engineers, the 1st respondent herein, on a monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/-, as a Fabricator Supervisor. The 1st respondent was a recipient of a contract by the 2nd respondent for the construction of a bus depot of K.S.R.T.C. at Raibag. While Sukumar Lengade was at the construction site, at about 4.10 p.m., on 3-8-1999 the steel structure which was lifted to the roof, fell on the deceased, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. The legal representatives of the deceased b...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Puttamma and ors. Vs. H.K. Ramegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1930; 2004(6)KarLJ146
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in RA No. 44/95 on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Holenarasipura arising of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 207/92 on the file of Munsiff, Holenarasipura.2. The appellants are the defendants. The respondent- plaintiff filed a suit for partition and possession of his 3/10th share in the suit properties consisting of agricultural lands and house property and the movables mentioned in the B schedule. One Sathigowda is the propositus, father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. The first defendant is the wife of Sathigowda. The propositus died in the year 1990. The plaintiff submits that the suit properties are ancestral properties, after demise of Sathigowda claims that he is entitled to a share in the property, accordingly filed a suit for partition.3. The defendants contend that the plaintiff on his marriage become illatom son-in-law to his in laws, he severed his links with the natural...
Tag this Judgment!Catering Inn Vs. Additional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: [2004]137STC374(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioner in this petition is challenging a notice issued under Section 25A of the Act dated January 22, 2002, annexure 'C'. The petitioner also is seeking for a writ of declaration declaring that the woman mentioned in Section 17(4)(ii) includes women also.2. The petitioner, M/s. Catering Inn, is a partnership firm and is engaged in catering business. It is registered in terms of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner-firm consists of two women partners. The partners started the business by way of supply of ready food to the different persons in different localities. The Government of Karnataka with a view to provide benefits in terms of the Policy, provided certain facilities to women entrepreneurs. The Government amended Section 17(4)(ii) of the Act No. 5 of 2000 while providing composition to such women caterers. An application was filed by the petitioner and thereafter, an order has been passed in terms of annexure 'B'. Thereafter, noticing ...
Tag this Judgment!Avasarala Automation Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Kar)54; [2004]269ITR163(KAR); [2004]269ITR163(Karn)
R. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner in these three petitions is calling in question the intimations dt. 14th Dec., 1999, 22nd Feb., 2002 and 27th March, 2002, issued under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act by the first respondent in terms of Annexs. A, A1 and A2. Petitioner is also questioning a common order passed under Section 264 of the IT Act in No. LRP Nos. 7, 8, 9/2002-03/CIT-I, passed by the second respondent for the asst. yrs. 1997-98 to 2000-01 in terms of Annex. C.2. Facts in brief are as under :Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the manufacture of special purpose machinery. Petitioner has filed its return of income for the asst. yr. 1998-99 on 30th Nov., 1998, for the year 1999-2000 on 31st Dec., 1999 and for the year 2000-01 on 30th Nov., 2000. These returns were processed and intimations were given in terms of Annexs. A, A1 and A2.Petitioner entered into a sale-cum-lease transaction with Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board ('APSE...
Tag this Judgment!Chamu Jinnappa Sheri and ors. Vs. Savitri Yeshwantrao Chagule and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2153; 2004(7)KarLJ21
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in RA No. 5/96 on the file of District Judge, Belgaum arising out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 44/92 on the file of Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum.2. The appellants are defendants 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 to 13 in the suit. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and share in the suit schedule property bearing Sy. No. 829 measuring 2 acres 3 guntas situate in Belgaum City. According to plaintiffs pursuant to the arbitration the family properties came to be divided and registered in a partition deed marked at Ex.P.1 dated 4-10-1963. One Jinnappa is the propositus. The defendants 1 and 2 and one Nemanna are the sons of Jinnappa. The defendant No. 3 and plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the daughters of Jinnappa. Nemanna is dead. Defendants 5 to 13 are the heirs of Nemanna. The plaintiffs contend that there are not consenting parties to the arbitration and to the award and also not p...
Tag this Judgment!Avasarala Automation Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2004
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN273(Kar)
ORDERPetitioner in these three petitions is calling in question the intimations dated 14-12-1999, 27-3-2002, 22-2-2002 issued under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act by the first respondent in terms of Annexures A, A1 and A2. Petitioner is also questioning a common order passed under section 264 of the Income Tax Act in No. LRP Nos. 7, 8, 9/2002-03/CIT-I, passed by the second respondent for the assessment years 1997-98 to 2000-01 in terms of Annexure-C.2. Facts in brief are as under :Petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture of special purpose machinery. Petitioner has filed its return of income for the assessment years 1998-99 on 30-11-1998, for the year 1999-2000 on 31-12-1999, and for the year 2000-2001 on 30-11-2000. These returns were processed and intimations were given in terms of Annexures A, A1 and A2.Petitioner entered into a sale-cum-lease transaction with Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board ('APSEB' for short...
Tag this Judgment!Salot Brothers Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST173(Karn)
1. The appellant, a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short), filed an application under Section 4 of the Act, before the Authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings in regard to the rate of tax payable on the following commodities:Hair pin, hair bands (elastic), hair bands (plastic) and hair clips (plastic).2. The authority, following the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Prakash Trading Co. [1972] 30 STC 348, the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Jai Shri Products, Varanasi [1974] 34 STC 494 [FB] and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Navarang Plastics v. State of Maharashtra [1975] 35 STC 510, has passed an order dated October 8, 2002 holding that the said items are 'toilet articles' fall under entry 10(ii) of Part 'T' of the Second Schedule to the Act and the tax applicable is 20 per cent.3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal, urging two contenti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »