Karnataka Court January 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State of Karnataka by Its Principal Secretary, Vs. K. Govindappa S/O K ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: ILR2007KAR2315; 2006(6)AIRKarR291(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 15-2-2005 in W.P. No. 1469/2003 which was allowed by the learned single Judge. The appellants are respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition. The 1st respondent herein is the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is the 4th respondent respectively in the writ petition. The writ petitioner Sri. K. Govindappa was appointed as a lecturer in History in an aided private college owned and managed by the 4th respondent Vinayaka Rural Education Society, Hagalavadi, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District, with effect from 10-7-1994. However, the Government of Karnataka refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the appointment was in violation of the roster policy and that he was appointed in a post reserved for a scheduled caste candidate. Though the petitioner filed a review petition before the Government contending that there was only a single post of lecturer in History in the college and therefore the re...
Lakkappa S/O Late Naga Hanumappa Vs. Govt. Tool Room and Training Cent ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: ILR2007KAR2617; 2007(4)KCCRSN233; 2006(6)AIRKarR236(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment dtd. 15-12-2005 passed in WP No. 23549/2005 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.2. Appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The challenge in the writ petition was against the transfer of the petitioner from Government Tool Room and Training Centre, Bangalore to KGF Sub-center as per annexure-A office order dtd 5-10-2005 issued by the respondent. The petitioner raised three contentions in the writ petition.a) The petitioner is a protected workman and therefore he was not liable to be transferred from the main centre at Bangalore to the Sub-center at KGF.b) Impugned transfer was vitiated by malafides.c) Transfer was in violation of the standing orders applicable to the respondent-industrial establishment.Learned Single Judge considered all the three contentions and rejected them holding them to be devoid of merit.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and having considered the facts of the...
Polycon International Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial T ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: (2008)13VST470(Karn)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). In the appeal it has called in question the correctness of the order dated February 11, 2005 made in SMR/KST(BCI)-II/CR. 4, 5 and 6/04-05 by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-II, Gandhinagar, Bangalore, in exercise of power conferred on him under Section 22A of the Act setting aside the order dated September 11, 2003 made in Appeal Nos. KST.AP. 37, 38 and 39/2003-04 by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal and Audit) (hereinafter referred to as, 'the appellate authority').2. The facts in brief are as hereunder:The Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence)-X, South Zone, on the basis of information gathered through intelligence source and from the circle office that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as, 'the assessee') has misclassified certain PVC goods and paid taxes at lowe...
Siddappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ224
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, questioning the correctness of the order dated 30th November, 2002 in proceedings No. KPR: (A)5:2002-03 on the file of the second respondent vide Annexure-J, has presented the instant writ petition.2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the petitioner has been allotted a site bearing No. 37 of Bommathimmanahalli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District and after verification, the same has been certified in the mutation register by the Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat, Kavanadala, Madhugiri Taluk vide Annexure-A in M.R. No. 36 of 1998-99, dated 16th September, 1998. Assailing the correctness of the mutation entry dated 16th September, 1998 vide Annexure-A, the third respondent herein has filed the appeal on the file of the second respondent-Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District under Section 269 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and the appeal filed by third respondent had come up for ...
Kumari Erawwa Vs. Land Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR1330; 2006(2)KarLJ392
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad, in L.R. Appeal No. 367/1986 dated 29.08.1987, reversing the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Gadag, dated 24.07.1976 and conferring occupancy right in favour of respondent No. 3 in respect of lands bearing R.S. Nos. 99/3 and 100/3 situate at Suratur Village, Gadag Taluk, Dharwad District, measuring 1 Acre 19 Guntas and 02 Acres 16 Guntas respectively.2. The father of the 3rd respondent herein filed Form No. 7 seeking conferment of occupancy right in respect of lands bearing R.S. Nos. 99/3 and 100/3. The petitioner was a minor at that time and was represented by his mother and natural guardian, Smt. Erawwa. The Land Tribunal by order dated 04.02.1976, rejected the Form No. 7 filed by the father of the 3rd respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Land Tribunal, the 3rd respondent preferred W.P. No. 20365/1983 and after the establishment of th...
G. Jayashankaraiah Alias Jayashankar Vs. T.N. Gangadhariah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Kant150; 2006(2)KarLJ612
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. The facts of the case are:T.G. Nanjamma, the wife of the appellant died on 11-5-1994 at Bangalore. She was a Teacher at the Government Lower Primary School, Pathapalya. She died whilst in service. The appellant widower, claiming the service benefits of the deceased, petitioned the lower Court under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for a succession certificate thereof. The respondent, father of the deceased, resisted the petition. The objection was that the appellant and the deceased had never lived in matrimony from inception, and had lived apart till the death of the deceased, though they were not formally divorced. The deceased Nanjamma had executed a Will in favour of the respondent, dated 9-5-1994, two days before her death. The appellant had allegedly married one Smt. Lalitha even during the subsistence of the marriage with the deceased. This fact having coming to the knowledge of the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Kolar, the appellant...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajatha Jewellers
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Kar)97; [2006]286ITR573(KAR); [2006]286ITR573(Karn)
N. Kumar, J.1. The Revenue has sought this reference under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The substantial questions of law referred by the Tribunal for adjudication are as under :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the notice issued under Section 148, requiring the assessee to file a return within 30 days of the receipt of the same, was invalid ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reassessments made for these years were invalid in law because of the defective notice ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of 18.621 kgs. of gold, brought by K.V. Jayaprakash into the firm, did not constitute stock-in-trade of the assessee-firm ?2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder:The assessee is a firm by name Rajatha Jewellers, herei...
D.M. Venkataramanappa and ors. Vs. Chikkadaddappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR2596; 2007(1)KarLJ154
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. These two appeals by the same appellants are filed against a common order on I. A. Nos. II and III filed by them before the trial Court.2. The facts of the case are as follows : The appellants claim that they, along with the respondents, except Respondent No. 4, constituted a Hindu Joint Family. It is stated that the father of appellant No. 1 had three wives. Appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 3 are Children of Bhagyamma, the third wife. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are born to Chikka Akkayamma, the second wife. Dodda Akkayamma, the third wife of Munishamappa, did not have any children. During the lifetime of late Munishamappa, appellant No. 1 and one Muniyappa had filed O.S. 185/75. The said Muniyappa, the plaintiff therein, and Munishamappa, defendant, had entered into a compromise and the suit was accordingly decreed in terms of the compromise. At para 15 of the compromise petition, it was recorded as followsIt is agreed that the eastern portion of Survey N...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Padmanabhan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Kar)616
N. Kumar, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue by reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following substantial question of law for opinion of this Court.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is unjustified ?2. The brief facts which give rise to this question are as under:The assessee is an individual and derives income from salary as regional manager of Orissa Industries Limited, Bangalore. A search was conducted in his residential premises on March 23,1992, and fixed deposits in various banks on various dates totally valued at Rs. 5,92,432 were seized. An order under Section 132(5) of the Act was passed on July 1, 1992. Thereafter, the assessee filed his returns disclosing income from salary and also admitted investments in fixed deposits. On consideration of th...
Valliappa Textiles and Allied Companies Workers Union Vs. State of Kar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2006
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR332]; ILR2006KAR1009; 2006(2)KarLJ26; (2006)IILLJ1000Kant
ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.2.1999 Annexure 'H' and order dated 14.6.1999 Annexure 'O' passed by first respondent-the Government of Karnataka permitting the second respondent to close their factory called Valliappa Textiles Limited, Hejjala, Bangalore district.2. The second respondent factory was established in the year 1967 and engaged in the manufacture of cotton, viscos and polyester yarns. In the year 1993 there were 291 workers on the rolls of the second respondent factory. On 30.12.1998 the second respondent factory filed an application before the first respondent-Government of Karnataka under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act' for short) for closure of the factory. The reasons for the closure, according to the management of second respondent factory are, that the textile industries are in the grip of unprecedented economic and financial crisis. The protecti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »