Karnataka Court January 2005 Judgments
N. Shamasundar Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1863
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The Petitioner after a disciplinary enquiry is dismissed from service by the order at Annexure-A dated 5-4-1993. The Petitioner preferred an appeal under the regulations, the appeal was kept in cold storage. Hence the Petitioner filed WP 11636/93 for a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal. This Court by order at Annexure-B in the writ petition directed the disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority and also to consider the request of personal hearing. The appellate authority has passed the order at Annexure-D dated 16-12-1997. Annexure-C is the additional grounds raised by the Petitioner in continuation of the grounds of appeal submitted earlier. In the decision of the Supreme Court in RAM CHANDER v. UNION of INDIA, : (1986)IILLJ334SC the following observations are made at para 24.:'24 Professor de smith at Pp. 242-43 refers to the recent greater readiness of the Courts to find a breach of natural justice 'cured' by a subsequen...
Tag this Judgment!Kr. Muralidhar Vs. Life Insurance Corpn. of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN572(Kar)
ORDERPetitioners are all employees of Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'LIC') and are working as Development Officers in the various branches of the Corporation.2. In these petitions, petitioners'have sought for quashing of a circular Ref. Mktg./ZL/26/2004 dated 24-4-2004 (copy at Annexure-B to the petition) issued by the 1 st respondent-the LIC of India, Central Office, Mumbai, and for further directions to the Corporation and its branches not to deduct income-tax at source in respect of payment to the petitioners' known as conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance, particularly for the year 2004-05 and for other consequential relief.3. These petitions are filed contending that the payment which the petitioners receive from the employer and which is known by the name conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance, is exempted from income-tax under the provisions of clause (14) of section 10 of the Act and to the knowledge and...
Tag this Judgment!M. Shamasundar Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR1187]
Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The petitioner after a disciplinary enquiry is dismissed from service by the order at Annexure-A dated 5-4-1993. The Petitioner preferred an appeal under the regulations, the appeal was kept in cold storage. Hence the petitioner filed WP 11636/93 for a direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of live appeal. This Court by order at Annexure-B in the writ petition directed the disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority and also to consider the request of personal hearing. The Appellate Authority has passed the order at Annexure-D dated 16.12.1997. Annexure-C is the additional grounds raised by the petitioner in continuation of (he grounds of. appeal submitted earlier. In the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Chander v. Union of India 1986 (53) FLR 191 (SC) the following observations are made at para 24:24. Professor de Smith at Pp. 242-43 refers to the recent greater readiness of the Courts to find a breach of natural justice 'cured' by a subsequent he...
Tag this Judgment!Ravikirthi Shetty and ors. Vs. Jagathpala Shetty (Deceased) by L.Rs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant194; 2005(2)KarLJ32
B.S. Patil, J.1. In the suit for partition brought by Jagathpala Shetty (plaintiff) against his brother Ravikirthi Shetty (defendant 1) and his two sisters Vijayamma and Nagarathnamma (defendants 2 and 3 respectively), the Court below by the judgment and decree dated 22-10-1993 decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants 1 to 3 have preferred this regular first appeal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their ranks obtained in the Court below. Few facts, which are essential for the purpose of disposal of this appeal may be set out as under:3. The plaintiff-Jagathpala Shetty and defendant 1-Ravikirthi Shetty are the sons of late Raju Shetty. Defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of late Raju Shetty. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. The case of the plaintiff being that B Schedule properties to the memorandum of plaint were acquired by the late father of the plaintiff and the defendants under a registered...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. Vs. Protectron Electronics (P) Ltd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Kar)672; ILR2005KAR4343; [2005]274ITR420(KAR); [2005]274ITR420(Karn)
H.L. Dattu, J.1. The IT Department is before this Court in this appeal filed under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). Though two questions of law are raised for our consideration and decision, in our opinion, only the first question of law raised in the memorandum of appeal requires our consideration in this appeal. The said question of law is as under :'Whether the Tribunal was correct in dismissing the appeal and the miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue against the order of the Appellate CIT setting aside the penalty levied on the ground that the annexures and the form filed along with the appeal memo did not disclose the correct number of the impugned order without providing the Revenue an opportunity to rectify the defect and considering the matter on merits by recording a finding on the controversy before it when a specific ground as to the challenge to the penalty order had been made in the appeal memo filed by the Revenue.'2. Facts as stated in the me...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mizar Govinda Annappa Pai and S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ171
B.S. Patil, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31-1-1997 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mangalore, in OS. No. 154 of 1990. The 1st defendant-Insurance Company which has suffered the decree has preferred this regular first appeal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their ranks obtained in the Court below. Few facts, which are essential for the purpose of disposal of this appeal may be set out as under:The plaintiff is a partnership firm and is the consignor of the goods. The 2nd defendant-M/s. Roshan Transport and Forwarding Agency is the carrier to whom the goods were entrusted. The 1st defendant-National Insurance Company Limited, Mangalore, is the Insurer of the goods consigned.3. The case of the plaintiff is that it despatched through the 2nd defendant-Transport Agency vide Consignment Note No. 37775, dated 21-10-1988. 100 cartons of cashew kernels from Mangalore to Delhi comprising of 25 cartons ...
Tag this Judgment!Rifahul Muslimeen Education Trust and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant203; 2005(2)KarLJ325
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioners are minority institutions established by the respective Trusts/Societies for the purpose of imparting education to the students in Mysore Town without Grant-in-Aid Code. Petitioners have established schools for different categories of students, more particularly the minority students of Mysore town. Having established the necessary infrastructure in the form of building and other facilities for imparting education for the students in petitioners' institutions, they have been granted aid by the State Government. They are spending considerable amount of money for education purposes. They have the protection under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners state that the State Government took a decision to extend Akshara Dasoha Scheme i.e., to provide midday meal to children studying in Government schools. Petitioners state that the respondents are under legal duty to provide necessary infrastructure to the management. They are spendin...
Tag this Judgment!Actis Technologies Private Limited and anr. Vs. Canara Bank and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant282; IV(2005)BC422; [2005]126CompCas917(Kar); ILR2005KAR2044; 2005(2)KarLJ458
ORDERN. Kumar, J. 1. The subject-matter of these writ petitions is the entire first floor of property bearing No. 73/3, situated at Nandidurga Crescent Road, Bangalore-46, measuring 1500 sq. feet. The Recovery Officer has brought this property for sale as per Annexure-A for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,33,61,383/- in pursuance of a Recovery Certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in terms of a decree passed against M/s. ABN Granites Limited. The petitioner contends that the said property never belong to M/s. ABN Granites Limited, and it was never mortgaged to the Bank as a security for payment of loan amount. In fact,, before purchasing this property the petitioner got a paper publication issued calling upon any person who has interest to come forward and state so. When there was no claim from any quarter he proceeded to purchase the property under a registered sale deed dated 8-8-1996 as per Annexure-H from its Vendor, for a valuable consideration. The Katha has been made out i...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Controller, North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ541
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. The Divisional Controller, NWKRTC is before me challenging the award of the Additional Labour Court, Hubli, passed in KID No. 36 of 1999.2. Respondent-Workman was working as a Conductor. He was appointed in the year 1993. On 9-6-1997 the bus was going from Pandarapura to Bailahongal and the same was checked at Mangalwad, i.e., Stage No, 46. It was noticed that the respondent had failed to collect the fare of Rs. 7.50 each from 10 passengers who were travelling from Pandarapura to Mangalwad (stage Nos. 50 to 46). In view of this, a fine of Rs. 750/- in all was imposed on all the ticketless passengers. The respondent-workman was kept under suspension and on the very same day Articles of charge were issued, Enquiry was conducted. Enquiry Authority found that the respondent was guilty of the charges. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 27-1-1999, ordering removal of the respondent from service. Same was subjected to reference in KID No. 36 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1744
ORDER1. This Court in this case disposed of on 9th May, 2003 since reported in : (2003)IIILLJ31SC , issued certain directions. Those directions need not be reproduced herein. Pursuant to or in furtherance of those directions, the State of Bihar has deposited a sum of Rs. 50 crores. The High Court of Judicature at Patna has also constituted a Committee headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Sinha, a former Judge of the Patna High Court.2. A report of the said Committee has been placed before us, from a perusal whereof it appears that a sum of Rs. 25,98,65,883.00 had been recommended for payment to the employees of most of the undertakings, Payment to Bihar State Sugar Corporation was said to be in the pipeline which came to be about Rs. 17 crores. It has been pointed out that BSIDC and units of other Corporations in Jharkhand had not been paid yet and the Committee is left with Rs. 6 crores and odd.3. An application for clarification has been filed by the Petitioner herein marked as I.A. No...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »