Karnataka Court December 2006 Judgments

Bpl Limited Rep. by Its General Manager Corporate Taxation and Audit S ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)208CTR(Kar)346; [2007]293ITR321(KAR); [2007]293ITR321(Karn)

1. Appellant is a Company engaged in the manufacture and sale of consumer electronic products like colour television seta, VCRs, various other audio and video products, etc. Appellant had also invested its fund in various other companies manufacturing allied or similar electrical, electronic and engineering goods. On 2.3.1993, appellant sold its holdings in eight companies to one Celestial Finance Limited for a total consideration of Rs. 23,10,03,974/- which was equal to the cost of acquisition of those shares for the appellant.2. Appellant filed its return for the assessment year 1993-94 before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichur, Kerala. Though originally intimation was issued under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, the assessment was taken up for scrutiny subsequently. During the income tax proceedings, internal audit was taken and there was an audit objection dated 17.8.1995 to the assessing officer and the assessing officer issued a letter to the assesses. Reply ...

Abay Joseph D/O. K.C. Joseph Vs. the Tahasildar (Ulc) Section Special ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person who claims interest in urban land measuring an extent of 37 cents in Sy. No. 98-2/C of Alape Village, Mangalore Taluk though under a registered sale deed dated 13-2-2004 executed by the erstwhile owner of this land namely, one Mrs. Alice D'Souza and Mrs. Grancis Lobo, who has questioned the legality of an endorsement dated 23-8-2004 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore [copy at Annexure-J] declining the request of the petitioner for dropping further proceedings in respect of the land for not disturbing the possession of the petitioner and also for release of the property from acquisition proceedings and in the event of the acquisition notification having been issued, to re-notify the same in terms of his representation dated 31-7-2004 (copy at Annexure-H].2. The Deputy Commissioner having declined such request, inter alia, indicating that in respect of the land in question, its erstwhile owner Alice D'Souza...

Bpl Ltd. Vs. Deputy Cgt

Court: Karnataka

R. Gururajan, J.1. Appellant is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of consumer electronic products like colour television sets, VCRs, various other audio and video products, etc. Appellant had also invested its fund in various other companies manufacturing allied or similar electrical, electronic and engineering goods. On 2-3-1993, appellant sold its holdings in eight companies to one Celestial Finance Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs. 23,10,03,974 which was equal to the cost of acquisition of those shares for the appellant.2. Appellant filed its return for the assessment year 1993-94 before the Dy. CIT, Trichur, Kerala. Though originally intimation was issued under Section 143(l)(a) of the Income Tax Act, the assessment was taken up for scrutiny subsequently. During the income-tax proceedings, internal audit was taken and there was an audit objection dated 17-8-1995 to the assessing officer and the assessing officer issued a letter to the assessee. Reply was submitted. ...

Huchappa, S/O. Shiv Arudrappa Akki and Sri Irappa S/O. Parappa Varur V ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR602; 2007(3)KLJ401; 2007(2)KCCR845; 2007(1)AIRKarR666

ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners have sought to declare Clause 4 of the Insurance Policy as unconstitutional and ultravires and further, to declare that the condition to undergo Medical Test for getting the revival or renewal of the policy as null and void and to issue writ of mandamus or any other direction directing the respondents 2 & 3 not to forfeit the premium amount paid by the discontinued policy holders and to treat the said amount as fixed deposit till the maturity period and further to issue writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Corporation to deposit all such alleged forfeited amount in any one of the scheduled bank or in the alternative, to treat the said amount, as the deposit of the policy holders payable at the time of maturity of the policy along with the reasonable interest and for such other relielfs.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.3. The petitioners are said to be the polic...

Gabriel Bhaskarappa Kuri, Vs. the United Basel Mission Church in India ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(3)KarLJ205; ILR2007(1)Kar773; 2007(1)KCCR758; 2007(2)AIRKarR213; AIR2007NOC945; 2007(3)CivilLJ669

N. Kumar, J.1. This is a defendants' Miscellaneous Second Appeal challenging the order of the lower Appellate Court which has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court only on the ground that as it has allowed the applications filed by the parties for production of additional evidence and consequently remanding the case to the trial Court to decide the case afresh in the light of the said additional evidence.2. The plaintiff-The United Basel Mission Church filed a suit for permanent injunction on 12.10.1990 on the ground that the defendants are interfering in the administration and management of the Church and Community Hall situated in Gadag-Betageri and for costs. Defendants contested the matter. The trial Court framed as many as 7 issues. Both the parties adduced documentary and oral evidence. On consideration of the aforesaid material on record, the trial Court decreed the suit, of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants, their men, servants from obstructing or inter...

Motor Industries Company Ltd., a Company Registered Under the Indian C ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2007]289ITR134(KAR); [2007]289ITR134(Karn)

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1961 and an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Petitioner is aggrieved due to the frustration of its intention to avail of certain benefits extended to an assessee in terms of Section 54EC of the Act.2. If an assessee has made investment from out of the profits arising from the transfer of a 'Long Term Capital Assets' in the notified bonds in terms of Section 54EC of the Act, then such income otherwise taxable as gains from the transfer of an asset is exempted from tax in terms of Section 54EC of the Act. Section 54EC of the Act reads as under.-54-EC: Capital gain not to be charged on investment in certain bonds -(1) Where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset (the capital asset so transferred being hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset) and the assessee has, at any ...

Sri V. Venkatesh, S/O Yenkappa Vs. the Manager, the New India Assuranc ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR407; 2007(2)KLJ319; 2007(1)KCCR626.

ORDERam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner registered owner of the motor vehicle being a goods lorry of Telco make, bearing certificate of Registration No. KA-17-8569, for short RC, reported the loss of the vehicle and the RC to the police station within whose jurisdiction the loss occurred. The police after investigation, being unable to trace the vehicle and the RC filed a 'C' report The petitioner's insurance claim having been refused, resulted in a complaint to the consumer forum, culminating in an appeal before the State forum, entitling the petitioner to Rs. 5,07,500/-, subject to production of the duplicate RC. The petitioner filed an application in for No. 26 under Rule 53 of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for short ' Rules ', for issue of a duplicate RC, which the 2nd respondent rejected by endorsement dated 18-7-06, Annexure 'G'. Hence this petition.Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, what emerges is that Rule 53 of the Rules provides for issue of duplica...

Ranjitha Balasubramanian and anr. Vs. Shanthi Group and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2008)BC92; ].ILR2007(1)Kar765; 2007(2)KLJ279; 2007(2)KLJ491; 2007(2)KCCR1103; 2007(2)AIRKarR211; 2007(2)AIRKarR345; AIR2007NOC944&953; (2007)2Crimes361(SN); 2007(3)CivilLJ148

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court of the XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bangalore, dated 21.6.2000, dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The power of attorney holder of the appellants herein filed a complaint before the Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore, alleging that the accused had received a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the complainant promising that a plot of land developed by the accused would be sold to them and afterwards, the complainants came to know that the accused have not developed any land and they demanded the accused to return their money and the accused agreed to refund the amount with interest and issued a cheque for Rs. 5,70,000/- on 25.1.1999 drawn on Canara Bank, Lalbagh West Gate Branch, Bangalore, and when the said cheque was presented for ...

Sri K.V. Rama Rao, S/O Venkatechalaiah, Vs. Prashanth theatre, Rep. by ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR640; (2007)IILLJ653Kant

ORDERSubhash Badi, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.2.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') produced at Annexure J.2. Petitioner herein had filed an application for payment gratuity under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. The Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority for Payment of Gratuity, Division-I, Bangalore by order dated 10.11.2004 directed the respondent to pay gratuity as determined within 30 days failing which pay 10% interest on the same.3. The order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority for payment of gratuity was called in question in W.P. No. 18690/2005 on 26.7.2005. This Court by order dated 8.12.2005 dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that an appeal is provided under Section 7(7) of the Act. However this Court gave liberty to the respondent to file an appeal and observed that the time spent in prosecuting ...

Ranjitha Balasubramanian and anr. Vs. Chandra Shekar Raju

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2008)BC65

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the complainant is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mayo hall Unit, Bangalore, dated 28.9.2001, in Criminal Appeal No. 15074 of 2000, wherein the Appellate Court has set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C. No. 26641 of 1999, dated 21.6.2000, convicting the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank, of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows:2. The appellants herein filed a complaint against the accused 1 to 3 before the Trial Court alleging that the respondents have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. It is the case of the complainants that the accused had received Rs. 6,00,000/- from them promising that ...