Karnataka Court October 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.
H. Narasimha Rao S/O Sri S.R. Hanumantha Rao Vs. Venkataram R. S/O Sri ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: [2007]138CompCas816(Kar); 2007(1)KarLJ238
K. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is:Whether the dishonoured cheques issued towards repayment of time barred debt does not constitute an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act? 2. Heard Sri H.T. Nataraja, learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant and Sri B.C. Rajanna, learned Counsel for the respondent/accused.3. For the purpose of convenience, the appellant and the respondent herein are referred to as 'the complainant' and 'the accused', respectively.4. The complainant and the accused were friends and colleagues in the then Karnataka Electricity Board. When the accused was about to retire, he approached the complainant for a loan of Rs. 60,000/- and agreed to repay the same within a short period. The complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the accused in this way that a sum of Rs. 200/- was paid in cash and the balance amount of Rs. 59,800/- was paid by three cheques. The accused has encashed the cheques. Though the lo...
Kabadi Enterprises Rep. by Its Partner Sri Kabadi Nagendrasa S/O Sri K ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Kar)448; [2007]290ITR610(KAR); [2007]290ITR610(Karn)
1. The assessee is before us in this appeal.2. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90, declaring Rs. 1,82,155/- and Rs. 3,69,879/- respectively. The Assessing Authority while concluding the assessment for the year 1988-89, included the interest concerned Rs. 1,97,821/-while quantifying the relief under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act (for short, 'the Act') by holding that interest cannot be treated as business income. Similarly, for the assessment year 1989-90, he denied the benefit of Section 80HHC insofar as the interest income is concerned. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed two appeals. The Assessing Authority passed a common order. The Assessing Authority accepted the contention of the assessee with regard to interest income, job work tailoring and nomination profits for the purpose of benefit under Section 80HHC of the Act The revenue moved the Tribunal. The appeal of the revenue was accepted. It is in these circumstances, the ...
Food World Super Market Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State of Karnataka, Depa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KarLJ110
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 19.1.2005 in proceedings No. BMAZ/FA/447 in respect of R.R. No. W-2-LG-11754 on the file of the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-C and further assailing the correctness of the impugned notifications dated 10.5.2004, 5.2.2005, 7.2.2005 vide Annexures D, E and G respectively, presented the instant writ petition.2. So far as prayer (c) sought in the instant writ petition seeking a direction to entertain the second appeal under Section 44.05 of the KERC Code 2000-2001 and decide the same on its merits, the said prayer (c) sought by the petitioners does not survive for consideration in view of the KERC (Electricity supply and Distribution) Code, 2000-2001. Hence, the said prayer is dismissed as not maintainable.3. The grievance made out by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the instant writ petition is that, the petitioners had got installation bearing R.R. No. W-2/LG-11754 with sanc...
H. Narasimha Rao Vs. R. Venkataram
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ583
K. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is:Whether the dishonoured cheques issued towards repayment of time barred debt does not constitute an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act?2. Heard Sri H.T. Nataraja, learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant and Sri B.C. Rajanna, learned Counsel for the respondent/accused.3. For the purpose of convenience, the appellant and the respondent herein are referred to as 'the complainant' and 'the accused', respectively.4. The complainant and the accused were friends and colleagues in the then Karnataka Electricity Board. When the accused was about to retire, he approached the complainant for a loan of Rs. 60,0007 and agreed to repay the same within a short period. The complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 60,0007 to the accused in this way that a sum of Rs. 2007 was paid in cash and the balance amount of Rs. 59,8007- was paid by three cheques. The accused has encashed the cheques. Though the loan a...
The Government of Karnataka by Its Secretary, Education Department (Pr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: ILR2007KAR216; 2007(1)KLJ660; 2007(1)KCCRSN13(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 11.2.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions Nos. 13627/2003 and 45321/2003. The appellants are the respondents in the Writ Petitions.2. The second respondent Smt. Puttathyamma was appointed as Lecturer in Kannada in Sri Bidarambika PUC College, Honnavalli, on 14.11.1992. At the time of her appointment, the College was not an aided Institution. The appointment of the second respondent was approved by the Director of Pre-University Education on 15.1.1993, on permanently unaided basis. As per order dated 26.9.1993, the Government of Karnataka accorded permission and admitted Sri Bidarambika PUC College, Honnavalli, for salary grant to the teaching Staff. When the case of the second respondent was submitted for aid, the request for aid in the case of the second respondent was rejected on the ground that her appointment was not as per Rules. Annexure-'G' is the communication dated 25.1.2003 sent by...
Naik Shekharappa Olekar S/O Late Hanumappa Olekar Vs. Union of India ( ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AIRKarR185
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person who was serving as Nayak in the Indian Army attached to 138, Medium Regiment, who is aggrieved by the order of reduction in rank and dismissal from service for committing offences under the Army Act, 1950 [for short, the Act, particularly under Section 39(a) of the Act on being tried by Summary Court Martial proceedings in terms of the order dated 1-11-2002 [copy at Annexure-A to the writ petition].2. Petitioner has impugned the legality of this order on several grounds, inter alia, urging that he was never given a proper opportunity to defend himself; that the procedure followed in trying him and inflicting the punishment of dismissal from service by Summary Court Martial is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the Army Rules, 1954 [for short, the Rules], and on the other hand, it is in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the order is not sustainable; that the appeal/revision to the high...
The Manager the Raibag Taluk Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rur ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KarLJ211; 2008(1)SLJ173(NULL)
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The orders at Annexures-H and J are called in question in this writ petition.Respondent No. 3 was working as Secretary in petitioner Bank during the period 1.1.1961 to 18.10.76. While he was working as Secretary, he misappropriated certain sums of money belonging to the society. Then the petitioner society instituted proceedings under Section 69 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies against the petitioner. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies passed the order dated:30/1/88 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 14,969.69 paise with future interest on principle amount. The said order is confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 29.12.89 in Appeal No. 353/88. The order of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was confirmed by this Court in W.P. No. 20476/1991(disposed of on 26th May 1997). In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner-bank filed Execution Petition in E.P. N...
S.N. Vasudevaiah S/O. Narasimaiah Vs. Appellate Authority Under Paymen ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR185]; ILR2006KAR4263; 2007(1)KarLJ327
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. The petitioner was employed with the 3rd respondent-Bank as its Deputy General Manager. He had retired from his services on 12.11.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation. He made an application before the 2nd respondent for payment of gratuity amount due to him under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (for short 'the Act') and the Karnataka Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973. The 2nd respondent by its order dated 8.3.2002 dismissed the application holding that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, does not apply to the employees of the 3rd respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal holding that there is no necessity for modification or setting aside the order dated 8.3.2002 of the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner along with certain other similarly situated employees of the 3rd respondent, filed writ petitions before this Court...
The Regional Director, Esi Corporation Vs. Falcon Trading Association ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)IIILLJ81Kant
V. Jagannathan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and his the consent of both the parties, the appeal is disposed of by this order, at the step of admission itself.2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether Security Guards employed and working in the establishment of the first respondent are to be covered within the meaning of 'employee' for the purpose of ESI contribution3. Briefly stated, following an inspection Causal to the appellant's establishment, the Inspector found that there were 18 direct employees and two security guards working in the establishment of the appellant and as such, as the total number of persons was 20, a report was submitted and based on the said report, the respondent-corporation issued the order dated 24.2.1989 and the said order passed by the second respondent was the subject matter before the ESI Court in a proceedings under Section 75 of the ESI Act. The learned Presiding Officer of the ESI Court after exa...
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Now Represented b ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ526; 2007(2)KarLJ115
V. Jagannathan, J.1. The appellant - Insurance Company is aggrieved by the liability fastened on it by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in a sum of Rs. 89,699/- in respect of the injuries sustained by R-l cleaner in an accident.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy. The learned Counsel for R-2 is absent and R-l, though served, has remained absent.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the only short point that requires consideration in this case is that whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to R-1 cleaner. The facts are not in dispute and the only aspect of the matter is that whether the policy in question, marked as Ex.R-1, did cover the case of R-1 cleaner or not. Referring to the observations made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at page 7 of the impugned order, it was submitted that though the Commissioner ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »