Karnataka Court November 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.
Muneer Ahmed Vs. Safia Mateen Alias Shaheen
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ919; I(2007)DMC550; 2007(1)KLJ141; 2007(1)AIRKarR165; AIR2007NOC2028; (2007)2Crimes16
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This revision petition by an unwilling husband who is not prepared to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 1,000/- awarded in favour of the respondent-wife from the date of the order in Cri. Misc. No. 76 of 2001 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Gulbarga and during the pendency of the petition at Rs. 800/- per month.2. The husband has brought the matter to this Court contending that the claim petitioner before the Family Court was not his wife as he had already divorced her; that in view of the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act'), the wife-present respondent could not have maintained a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for seeking maintenance, but should have taken recourse to the provisions of only the Act and therefore the Family Court is in error in awarding maintenance.3. Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged t...
Fakru S/O Akbar Latif, Vs. the State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary, t ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KarLJ488; ILR2007(2)KarSN25; 2007(3)KCCRSN118; 2007(1)AIRKarR422
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petition, albeit listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, is finally heard and is disposed of by this older.2. Facts briefly stated are:The father of the first petitioner and the lather of the second and third petitioners filed two separate applications in form No. 7, under Section 46A(1) of The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, for short 'Act', for being registered as occupants of one-half share out of land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy. No. 266/4A + B of Karajage village. The land Tribunal after an enquiry over the said two applications, by order dated 26-02-1976 conferred occupancy rights as claimed, which when called in question by the Land Owner in W.P.No. 531/1982, was quashed and the proceeding remitted for fresh consideration. 3. On remand, the third respondent though served with notice of the proceeding before the land tribunal, remained absent and unrepresented. During the pendency of the said p...
K.H. Nallappa S/O Hanumappa Vs. the Secretary Department of Co-operati ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)KarLJ126; ILR2007(1)KarSN7; 2007(2)KCCR833; 2007(1)AIRKarR598
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are challenging the notifications dated 17.2.2003 and 15.3.2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka, complaining that their preferential rights under Rule 11(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 are affected by those notifications. Therefore, all these petitions are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. In WP.No. 18445/2003 the petitioner is National Mineral Development corporation Limited a Government of India Enterprises. On 11/12.12.1968 they made an application for mining lease over an area of 4025 hectares of land situated in Ramadurga, Bellary District, Karnataka. No orders were passed within the stipulated period on the said application. It is deemed to have been rejected. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a revision before the revisional authority-Central Government and the revision was allowed directing the State Government to consider the application af...
Shantawwa W/O Basappa Roogi and Vs. Basappa Gurappa Roogi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: ILR2007KAR544; 2007(1)KarLJ221; 2007(2)KCCR1193; 2007(1)AIRKarR155; 2007CriLJNOC130
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This revision petition is by the petitioners in Crl Misc No. 194 of 2003, on the file of Judge, Family Court, Bijapur, the first petitioner claiming to be the wife of the respondent - Basappa Gurappa Roogi - and the second petitioner claiming to be the daughter of the first petitioner and the respondent, and being aggrieved by the order dated 15-4-2005 passed therein by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Bijapur, substantially dismissing the petitioner which was one claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- in favour of the first petitioner as wife and Rs. 800/- in favour of the second petitioner as daughter, by allowing the petition only in favour of the second petitioner and limited to the extent of Rs. 300/- per month.2. It is questioning the correctness and the legality of this order, the present revision petition on several, grounds.3. It is urged in support of the petition that the learned Judge of the Family Court has not properly apprec...
State of Karnataka, Represented by Its Secretary to Government, Financ ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: ILR2007KAR1500; (2009)19VST535(Karn); 2007(3)KCCRSN194(DB)
ORDERJawad Rahim, J.1. State is in appeal against the judgment and order dated 22-12-2003 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in series of Sales Tax Appeal Nos. 943, 944, 945 and 946 of 2003.2. The facts, which resulted in filling of this appeal by the State, are:Respondent is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in mining and sale of Iron Ore within the State of Karnataka. Mining activity of the respondent company are basically within the Chithradurga District. It is assessed under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and has been periodically submitting its returns. 3. The assessment under KST Act for the year 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 were reopened under Section 12-A of the Act by the Assessing Officer. He did so having noticed that the respondent company had engaged contractors for mining operation and during the course of such operation necessarily several vehicles were utilised by the contractors. The obligation of the respondent and the con...
Sri Mahadevanaika S/O Sannanaika Vs. Shivakumar S/O Gopamma, Since Min ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC590; ILR2006KAR4647; 2007(1)KarLJ117
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, (for short the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 24.4.2002 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Mysore in Civil Miscellaneous No. 185/1998 originally numbered as 113/1998.2. Civil Miscellaneous petition was by the wife and children of the present revision petitioner claiming a monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month against the salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month which the revision petitioner was drawing by working as a cashier at K.E.B, Kollegal. The revision petitioner contested the claim disputing the very relationship and accordingly pleaded he is not liable to pay any amount by way of maintenance in favour of 1st petitioner therein the wife 2nd and 3rd petitioners / minor sons. The learned Judge of the Family Court who had framed as many as four points for determination, which are:1. Whether the 1st petitioner is legally wedded wife of respondent and petitioner...
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-4 Vs. Yellamma Da ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Kar)523; ILR2007KAR4622; [2007]290ITR353(KAR); [2007]290ITR353(Karn)
1. Revenue is before us, Assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 1989-90 relevant for the previous year ending 31.3.1989 declaring a loss of Rs. 35,35,600/-. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax noticed that depreciation has been claimed by the respondent-assesses on several machineries. He directed the asses nee to furnish the copy of the invoices of the machinery on which depreciation was claimed. From verification, it was found that the items of machinery had been purchased during the year. However, since on the admission of the respondent-assesses itself that the hospital started functioning from February/March 1989, the assessee was directed to produce evidence regarding use of machinery, No evidence was produced by the assessee. In those circumstances; the assessing authority concluded that the items of machinery on which depreciation was claimed were not put to use by the hospital and consequently he disallowed the depreciation on the imported machinery to the...
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vishwanath and Company Ex ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: [2007]292ITR225(KAR); [2007]292ITR225(Karn)
1. Revenue is before us aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 8.4.1999, Annexure 'C'. Respondent is an Excise Contractor. Re-assessment order was passed by the assessing officer Under Section 143(3) r/w. Section 143 of the Income Tax Act. Assessee filed a return of income declaring a net loss of Rs. 9,223/-. It was concluded Under Section 143(1) of the I.T. Act. Thereafter, notice was issued Under Section 148 of the Act and the assessment was re-opened. Assessee wrote a letter dated 9.10.1990 stating therein that the return filed on 2.12.1985 may be taken as a return filed in response notice Under Section 148 of the I.T. Act. Before that the department issued notifications dated 2.12.1989, 2.2.1990, 26.2.1990, 2.7.1990, 1.11.1990 in the matter of proceedings, a summon was also issued on 21.11.1990. In response to the said notice one Sri. Appa Rao appeared and his submission was recorded. On 19.12.1990, a notice Under Section 143(2) of the I.T. Act was issued...
K. Venkataramaiah Setty Vs. B.R. Seetharamappa Setty and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KarLJ495; ILR2007(1)Kar637; 2007(2)KCCR1190; 2007(1)AIRKarR394; AIR2007NOC369
V. Jagannathan, J.1. The appellant filed an application before the Court below under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. to implead him as plaintiff-11 in the suit that is pending and in which the plaintiffs had sought declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants. The Trial Court dismissed the said application by observing that the applicant will get better title to the property only after his vendors succeed in the suit aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant is before this Court.2. Heard Sri S.V. Shastri, the learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Arabatti, the learned Counsel for R-2, R-3 and R-7, and Smt. Pallavi, the learned Counsel for R-12 and R-14. The learned Counsel for the appellant, referring to Order 22 Rule 10, submitted that as the applicant has purchased the property in question from the plaintiff, he is interested in the outcome of the suit and, therefore, the Trial Court could not have declined to implead him as plainti...
Biyar Rubber (P) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Kar)191; ILR2007KAR301; [2007]292ITR251(KAR); [2007]292ITR251(Karn)
ORDER1. This is a reference under the provisions of Section 256(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') from the Revenue seeking opinion of this Court on the following question of law:On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is not entitled to investment allowance Under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the cost of the machinery? 2. The facts manifesting from the case papers, relevant to be taken into consideration are:The assessee, namely, M/s Blyar Rubbers (P) Ltd., is an industrial unit having its production unit at Peenya Industrial Estate, Bangalore. The assessee was originally assessed and assessment was completed on 28-03-1988 under Section 148(3) of the Act determining the Income at Rs. 5,42,660/- as against the loss returned at Rs. 8,02,919/-. It was assailed by the assessee in CIT(A) Appeal, who set aside the assessment on 10-03-1989 and directed reassessment after giving opportunity to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »