Karnataka Court February 2005 Judgments
Balaji Vegetable Products P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Kar)38; [2007]290ITR172(KAR); [2007]290ITR172(Karn)
H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, at the instance of the assessee referred the following three questions of law for our opinion:I. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted in the instant case and thus the penalty levied is liable to be upheld ?II. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim for deduction made by the applicant was a false claim so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act ?III. Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no evidence of payment made by the applicant company to the other company to justify the claim, when adequate materials were furnished in the course of the appellate proceedings ?2. The assesses-company filed a return of income on January 13, 1981, for the assessment year 1980-81 declari...
Tag this Judgment!Sri N. Dattathry Vs. State Bank of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR1120]; ILR2005KAR2033; 2005(4)KarLJ432; (2005)IIILLJ625Kant
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.The Petitioner retired from the services of the Respondent as Assistant Manager with effect from 31-5-01. In respect of disbursement of some of the loans made by the Petitioner during his services is the subject matter of a criminal proceedings in Special Case No. 74/01 and Special Case No. 75/01 pending on the file of Special Court for CBI cases, Bangalore. The Petitioner seeks the payment of gratuity and commutation of pension and other pensionary benefits payable with interest at 12% from the date of retirement till the payment.2. Per contra the Respondent rely on the Regulation 46 of the State Bank of Mysore Employees' (Pension) Regulations, 1995 which reads thus:'46. Provisional pension-(1) An employee who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceeding are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued, a provisional pension, equal to the maximum pension which would have b...
Tag this Judgment!Shivalingeshwara Oil Mill, Represented by Its Managing Partner, Mahali ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ476
ORDERS.B. Majage, J. 1. In this petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC, the petitioners, who are L.Rs of deceased Managing Partner of an oil mill, have questioned the impugned order dated 5-9-2003 passed in Execution No. 6 of 1991, by which the objection taken by them regarding execution of decree against the property of the deceased has been rejected and answered in favour of the respondent-decree-holder.2. It was vehemently argued for the petitioners that the property now sought to be sold has been held by the Court as personal property of the deceased and not of the firm; that the execution of the decree obtained against firm should have been proceeded against the property of the firm - oil mill and not against the personal property of deceased Mahalingappa Kori when, in fact, the firm is judgment-debtor and not said Mahalingappa Kori; that the firm - oil mill has not been property represented after the death of Mahalingappa Kori as no partner of the said oil mill has been brou...
Tag this Judgment!State by Basavapatna Police Station Vs. Harshad
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2357; ILR2005KAR1572; 2005(2)KarLJ481
ORDER1. This reference has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Davangere in S.C. No. 29 of 2004 seeking decision of this Court on a question of law as well as interpretation of certain provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act No. 56 of 2000') vis-a-vis Section 27 of the Cr. P.C. In view of the difficulty that has arisen to apply in view of the principles mentioned in the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2000 Kar. 2542.2. The respondent-Harshad, a juvenile has been charge-sheeted along with others for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. In the charge-sheet filed by the CPI, Davangere, the respondent-juvenile has been ranked as accused 9. As he was found to be juvenile, his case was separated from S.C. No. 6 of 2003 and given a new number as S.C. No. 29 of 2004. Thereafter, the le...
Tag this Judgment!The National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Pushpa Alias Pushpalat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ564
Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. M.F.A. No. 350 of 2003 and M.F.A. CROB. No. 315 of 2003 in M.F.A. No. 5233 of 2003 are by the insurer, while M.F.A. CROB. No. 179 of 2003 in M.F.A. No. 350 of 2003 and M.F.A. No. 5233 of 2003 are by the claimant and M.F.A. CROB. No. 294 of 2004 is by the owner calling in question, the legality and validity of the judgment and award dated 15- 11-2002, passed in MVC No. 901 of 1995, on the file of the Court of the Additional MACT, Sirsi (for short, 'MACT'). Hence, they are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Facts in brief;That the petitioner in MVC No. 901 of 1995 is the wife of the petitioner in MVC No. 913 of 1995. On 12-6-1995 while they were travelling from Belgaum towards Dandeli along with their children and in-laws, in the vehicle being a Tata Sumo bearing No. KA 22/M-3139 belonging to respondent 3, at about 9-15 p.m., near Geneshgudi at Kalapani, Mahindra Tempo vehicle bearing No. KA 31 of 810 belonging to the 1st r...
Tag this Judgment!B. Pundalika MaraThe Vs. the Deputy Director of Public Instructions an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1670
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The petitioner an employee of an aided school was appointed to the post of Assistant Master on 4.12.1978 and was working in Sri Durgaparameshwari Higher Primary School, Bantakallu, Udupi Taluk. The respondents vide order Annexure-A dated 21.1.02 gave a benefit of an additional increment to the persons who have put in more than 20 years of blameless service but had no benefit of having a promotion. The petitioner fully qualified to get the additional increment vide Annexure-A. Accordingly it was granted to the petitioner. It appears that the scholar strength of Sri Durgaparameshwari School came down rendering the services of the petitioner a surplus staff. The respondents posted the petitioner to K.M. Aided Higher Primary School, Hirgana in Karkala Taluk by exercise of the powers under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Education Rules. After the posting of the petitioner to the aided school at Hirgana, the respondents passed an order withdrawing the benefit of addition...
Tag this Judgment!Fakirappa Durgappa Harijan Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Gadag Sub-divis ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2592; 2005(3)KarLJ79
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Since this writ petition can be disposed of at preliminary hearing stage itself, Sri H. B. Narayan, High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice on behalf of first respondent.2. The petitioner is member of 2nd respondent-Gram Panchayat. He is seeking to quash the notice of no-confidence motion at Annexure-A, dated 22-1-2005 moved against the Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat.3. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed for several reasons. Annexure-B is the calendar of events for conducting election. The election is scheduled on 25-2-2005. The no-confidence motion is scheduled on 15-2-2005. Thus, there is hardly 10 days between the scheduled no-confidence motion meeting and elections. In view of mere 10 days gap between the two events, the petitioner should not have approached the Court. This is nothing but a frivolous and luxurious petition.4. The no-confidence motion is not moved against the petitioner. Hence, he cannot be the aggrieved person....
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Sunitha Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KarLJ99
ORDERN.K. Patil, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition, has sought for a direction, directing the respondents to release the salary grant/aid in respect of the appointment of the petitioner, without insisting the requirement of approval of the appointment of the petitioner as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar and Anr. v. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti and Anr., : AIR2001SC2836 . and grant all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, including arrears of salary, increments, seniority and other benefits.2. The petitioner claims to be a B.A. and B.Ed, graduate. The fifth respondent herein - management is running an Educational Institution. The third respondent has issued notification for appointment of 'Assistant Master' in the Educational Institution run by the fifth respondent on 21st January, 1999. In pursuance of the said Notification, the fifth respondent has given paper publication in 'Samyukta Karnataka' a Kannada Daily on 3r...
Tag this Judgment!Basavaraj Yellappa Pundi Vs. the National Insurance Company Limited an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ638; AIR2005Kant369; ILR2005KAR3403; 2005(5)KarLJ388
Manjula Chellur, J.1. The appellant before this Court is the defendant before the Trial Court. The respondents are the plaintiffs 1 and 2 before the Trial Court.2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the present appeal is as under:The first appellant is the first plaintiff before the Trial Court. The second plaintiff executed subrogation letter in favour of the second plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,07,713/- which came to be paid by the first plaintiff to the second plaintiff in respect of loss or damage caused to the goods insured under policy No. 602605/21/24/55/92 and declaration No. 1328. All the rights and remedies in consequence of the damage caused to the goods were assigned in favour of the first plaintiff. The second plaintiff is the consignor who was dealing in cotton as Commission Agent at APMC Yard, Saundatti. He had insured 50 docras of DCH 32 Koppas 99.70 quintals with the plaintiff No. 1, a transit insurer by paying the insurance premium for carrying the cotton goo...
Tag this Judgment!Basavaraj Yellapa Pundi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC392
Manjula Chellur, J.1. The appellant before this Court is the defendant before the Trial Court. The respondents are the plaintiffs 1 and 2 before the Trial Court.2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the present appeal is as under:The first appellant is the first plaintiff before the Trial Court. The second plaintiff executed subrogation letter in favour of the second plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,07,713 which came to be paid by the first plaintiff to the second plaintiff in respect of loss or damage caused to the goods insured under policy No. 602605/21/24/55/92 and declaration No. 1328. All the rights and remedies in consequence of the damage caused to the goods were assigned in favour of the first plaintiff. The second plaintiff is the consignor who was dealing in cotton as Commission Agent at APMP Yard, Saundatti. He had insured 50 docras of DCH 32 Koppas 99.70 quintals with the plaintiff No. 1, a transit insurer by paying the insurance premium for carrying the cotton goods...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »