Karnataka Court December 2006 Judgments

Kvaverner John Brown Engineering (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commiss ...

Court: Karnataka

H.L. Dattu, J.1. The assessee's appeals before us, inter alia, questioning the findings and the conclusion reached by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 163/Bang/1999 dated January 31, 2003 and 750/Bang/ 1997, dated December 5, 2002.2. The facts in a nutshell are:3. The assessee is a private limited company. It is involved in design engineering. The company had filed its returns of income for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 on November 29, 1996, and November 29, 1997, respectively. After receipt of such returns by the assessee, the assessing authority for the aforesaid assessment years, had issued an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and in that, had disallowed the claim of the assessee under the provisions of Section 80-O of the Act, being of the view, that the allowance can only be on the net income and not on the gross income. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee had carried the matter unsuccessfully...

Rajashekara Kakunje Vs. State Bank of Mysore and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007(1)Kar554; 2007(1)KCCR301; 2007(2)AIRKarR126

N.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 11th October 2001 issued by third respondent vide Annexure F, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a declaration, declaring the same as unjust, arbitrary discriminatory and contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India 2000 SCC (L & S) page 767 Petitioner has also sought for a direction, directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment as 'Clerk' on compassionate grounds.2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner is the legally wedded husband of late Smt. B. Devaki, who was working as Clerk in the Udupi Branch of the respondents - State Bank of Mysore (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank'). While she was in service of respondents - Bank, she died on 1st April 1999 leaving behind the petitioner as the only legal heir. The respo...

Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Represented by Chief Engineer ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2007Kant55; 2007(1)KarLJ131

V. Jagannathan, J.1. The appellant-Board herein is carrying on the business of supply of electricity in Andhra Pradesh and it calls in question the order passed on I.A. No. I by the trial court restraining the appellant from invoking the two bank guarantees executed by R-1 and the main ground urged in the appeal is that the trial court could not have prevented the appellant from encashing the amount of the two bank guarantees bearing Nos. 12/91 and 13/91, both dated 27.3.1991, and the trial court has totally erred in following the law laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the bank guarantees.2. Sri G.V. Shantharaju, learned senior counsel for the appellant, submitted that in respect of the work undertaken at Shrishailam Left Bank Power Station with an installed capacity of 990 MW with external assistance from Overseas Economic Corporation Fund, Japan in the year 1991, as the project, involved installing belt conveyor system, the appellant called for tenders for design, fabrication...

Hanumanthappa Krishnappa Mikali S/O. Krishnappa Mikali Vs. the State o ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(3)KCCR1860; 2008(5)AIRKarR495

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The petitioner while working as Second Division Surveyor in the Service of Government of Karnataka was charge sheeted before the Special Judge, Belgaum, in Spl.C.C. No. 83/1996 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As per his judgment/order dated 30.12.2005, the Special Judge, Belgaum, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 600/-. The judgment of the Special Judge has been challenged before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 152/2006 and the High Court by its order 25.1.2006 has suspended the sentence imposed on the petitioner and has granted bail to the petitioner. In view of the conviction of the petitioner by a Criminal Court, the second respondent issued Annexure-'A.3' order dated 1.9.2006 dismissing him from service. Apparently, the second respondent has invoked Rule 14(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control ...