Karnataka Court March 2004 Judgments
Smt. Gundamma Vs. Shivasharanappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant357; 2004(3)KarLJ575
K. Ramanna, J.1. The wife, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21-9-2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga, in G. and W.C. No. 18 of 1997, has preferred this appeal under Section 47(c) of the Guardian and Wards Act (for short, 'the Act'), whereby the said Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent under Section 25 of the Act directing the appellant to give custody of the ward Satish alias Santosh to the respondent-father forthwith, mainly on the ground that the Court below has not considered the welfare of the ward and his willingness as to whether he wishes to reside with mother or father and thus misdirected itself in coming to a wrong conclusion. It is contended that admittedly, the ward is aged about 10 years and is capable of knowing residing with whom his welfare and interest is more secured, but, the Trial Court has not done any exercise to ascertain wish of the ward.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage of the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Siddappa a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC353; 2004ACJ1639; [2004(102)FLR697]; ILR2004KAR3119; 2004(4)KarLJ150
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.1. This appeal is by the insurer. According to Sri Seetharama Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:(1) Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the claim when the death of Shivanna had not been caused due to an accident which occurred during the course and out of the employment?(2) Whether the Commissioner was justified in supplanting the word accident to entertain the claim petition when the petition itself had mentioned it as an incident?(3) Whether Commissioner was justified in ignoring the contents of the FIR and mahazar which had clearly shown that the cause of death was not an accident and it was a suicide?2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Davanagere in Case No. WCA.CR.141 of 2000, dated 30-3-2002. In this appeal, Mr. Seetharama Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant has raised various interestin...
Tag this Judgment!Miss. Shibani Motha Vs. the Employees Provident Fund Organisation and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR630]; ILR2005KAR117; 2005(3)KarLJ381
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner is the sister of Mr. Gabriel Motha, an employee of the third respondent. He was a member of the Provident Fund and his Account No. was KN/45/5323. He was a bachelor. He was looked after by his sister, the petitioner. He nominated the petitioner on 21.1.1998 in the prescribed form to receive the pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. Annexure-A is the nomination and declaration form. He died on 31.1.1998. It appears that the third respondent forwarded the said nomination and declaration form to the respondents 1 and 2 only on 23.6.1998. After the death of her brother, the petitioner filed an application for grant of pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 as per Annexure-B. The request of the petitioner for pension has been rejected by respondents 1 and 2 on the ground that there was no valid nomination available in favour of the petitioner on the death of the member. As per Paragraph - 61(1) of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme,...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman, Blde Association Vs. Kasturibai and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(7)KarLJ100
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. M.F.A. No. 356 of 2003; M.F.A. CROB No. 32 of 2003 in M.F.A. No. 356 of 2003; M.F.A. No. 357 of 2003; M.F.A. CROB No. 27 of 2003 in M.F.A. No. 357 of 2003; M.F.A. No. 358 of 2003; M.F.A. CROB No. 26 of 2003 in M.F.A. No. 358 of 2003 are filed by the beneficiary and cross-objections by the landowners and M.F.A. Nos. 460 to 462 of 2003 are by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, 'LAO') calling in question the legality and validity of the common judgment and award dated 25-9-2002 passed in L.A.C. Nos. 145 of 1991; 144 of 1991 and 146 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur (for short, the 'Civil Court').2. 19 acres 18 guntass in R.S. No. 138; 30 acres 32 guntass in R.S. No. 139 and 19 acres 30 guntas in R.S. No. 143 of Bhutnal Village, Bijapur Taluk (for short, the 'acquired lands') were acquired by the State in exercise of its 'eminent domain' power under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'Act') ...
Tag this Judgment!AshvIn S.N. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), by Its Secretary, Ministry of Fi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant88; ILR2004KAR1870; 2004(4)KarLJ134
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J1. Petitioner is an agent for selling lottery tickets of all States including Karnataka State. His primary grievance in this Writ Petition is that his business and means of livelihood is seriously affected by Government of Karnataka conducting the draws of Karnataka State Lotteries on the basis of single digit and also conducting draws more than once a week in various names in violation of the provisions of Section 4(a) and (h) of Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 ('the Act for short).2. In the petition, petitioner is seeking the following reliefs. They are:'(a) To issue a writ, prohibiting the respondents from conducting draws on Karnataka State Lotteries on the basis of a Single digit and also conducting draws more than once a week in various names.(b) To direct the respondent No. 1 to prosecute respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for violation of the provisions of Section 4(a) and (h) of the Act, 1998, and(c) Lastly, for such other relief including the cost of this Writ Petition...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Pattabiraman and Etc. Vs. Smt. Shobha S. Hadli and Etc.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: IV(2005)BC525; [2005]127CompCas43(Kar); 2004CriLJ2265
ORDERM.S. Rajendra Prasad, J. 1. All these petitions involve common question of law and common arguments have been advanced by both sides, hence they are being disposed of by a common order.2. All these criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C.3. The Cri. Pet No. 3819/03, is filed by the accused No. 2 praying the Court for setting aside the order dated 4-2-2003 passed in CC No. 2138/2003 on the file of the 13th Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore, wherein the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case against the accused No. 2 -- petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'the Act').4. The Crl. Pet. No. 3820/03, 3836/03, 3837/03 and 3838/03, are similar petitions filed by the accused No. 2 praying the Court for setting aside the order dated 4-2-2003 passed in CC No. 2141/2003, 2139/2003, 2140/2003 and 2142/2003 on the file of the 13th Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore, wherein the learned Magistrate had taken cognizan...
Tag this Judgment!B.G. Shivananjappa Vs. Shantha Alias Ushadevi and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2455; I(2005)DMC234; 2004(5)KarLJ289
ORDERM.S. Rajendra Prasad, J.1. This criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401, Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment dated 23-11-2002, in Crl. R.P. No. 194/2000, on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, wherein the learned Sessions Judge had allowed the Revision Petition preferred by the wife and daughter of the husband revision petitioner and had remanded the case to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law, challenging the legality and validity of the order impugned.2. The Court has heard the arguments of Sri S. K. Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-husband and Sri S. A. Sami, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-wife and daughter,3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-husband strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the order impugned is illegal and improper. The learned Sessions Judge was not at all justified in arriving at the conclusion. The learne...
Tag this Judgment!Cit and anr. Vs. Century Building Industries P. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: [2007]293ITR80(KAR); [2007]293ITR80(Karn)
1. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter referred to as), are filed against the common order dated December 31, 2001, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in three batches of appeals relating to orders under Sections 201(1), 201(1A) and 271C relating to the assessment years 1992-93 to 1996-97.2. The respondent-assesses is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of real estate and construction. A survey was conducted under Section 133A of the Act and certain cheque receipts registers and cheque payment registers were found in the business premises of the company. Examination of those books disclosed that loans were taken by the directors and managing director in their individual capacities from private lenders in the name of the assesses-company. The loan amounts received by way of cheques in the name of the assessee were deposited in the bank account of the assessee and immediat...
Tag this Judgment!Business Process Outsourcing (India) Private Limited Vs. the Authority ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4033; (2008)11VST1(Karn)
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellant filed an application before respondent, that is the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling, constituted under Section 4 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('KST Act' for short) seeking advance ruling on the following:'Whether concessional tax rate of 4% against 'C' form can be availed under Section 8(1) read with Section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 or NIL tax rate in case of 'SALE IN TRANSIT' as the case may be for the interstate purchase of Plant & Machinery', i.e', Air Conditioners, Workstations with seating, computers, printers, computer peripherals, scanners by a company engaged in the business of process and delivery of various business processes of client organisations.2. The said Authority considered the application passed an order dated 7-7-2003 under Section 4 of the KST Act holding that the appellant cannot effect purchases on the strength of 'C' forms, as appellant is not engaged in sale of goods but is engaged in ...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Coffee Curing Works Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC653(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner in these petitions is a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short). In respect of the periods 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. Petitioner had claimed certain concessions from the sales tax liability for these years based on a Government Order bearing No. CI 240 SPC 93 dated July 12, 1993 outlining the new industrial policy of the Government of Karnataka for the period from 1993 to 1998. The claim of the petitioner was on the premise that it carries on certain manufacturing activities and as such can avail of the concessions sought to be given by the Government as had been indicated in this Government Order dated July 12, 1993.2. The assessing authority had rejected such claim of the petitioner and had concluded assessments for these years without extending such benefit to the petitioner.3. Petitioner had filed rectification applications Under Section 25-A of the Act for the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »