Karnataka Court February 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.
Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Kar)45; ILR2006KAR1858; [2006]286ITR585(KAR); [2006]286ITR585(Karn)
N. Kumar, J.1. This reference is made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in pursuance of the order dated 27th January 1997 passed in Civil Petition Nos. 564-565/1996 by this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (for short the Act) to consider the following question of law.Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in allowing the claim for deductions while considering the deduction Under Section 80M of the Act? 2. The facts leading to this reference are as hereunder:The assessee made a total investment in shares as to the value of Rs. 57,60,164/- on 31.12.1983 and Rs. 66,42,372/- on 31.12.1984. The assessee received a sum of Rs. 11,05,432/- and Rs. 8,82,208/- as divident income and claimed deduction under Section 80M of the Act. The assessing Authority deducted 10% out of the gross dividend received towards expenditure under Section 57(iii). Aggrieved by the same the assessee preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed. In the s...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Papamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC492; 2007ACJ13; 2006(4)KarLJ585
Jawad Rahim, J.1. These two miscellaneous First Appeals are directed against the Judgment and Award dated 4-1-2005 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna in M VC No. 188/2004 awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,90,000/- regarding sufferance of injury in road traffic accident.2. While in MFA No. 3381/95 the insurer has assailed the award as high and excessive, in the cross-objection the claimant has described it as irrational and inadequate. Hence, both the appeals are taken up for disposal by this common judgment at the stage of admission itself as requested by both the counsel.3. As regards the cross objection is concerned, it has been dismissed for non-prosecution. An application seeking its restoration has been filed. We have heard the said application and considering the circumstances explained, we are satisfied that the appeal needs to be restored. Accordingly, I. A.III/2005 is allowed and the order dated 27.10.2005 dismissing the appeal for default i...
Akhila Bharatha Billavara Union and anr. Vs. Smt. Shakunthala
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR997]; ILR2006KAR1523; 2006(2)KarLJ459
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by an employer who is complaining that a certain judgment and award which the petitioner suffered before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, in exercise of Section 8 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 by its judgment dated 17-2-2000 (copy at Annexure-D), while being executed, the executing Court, in terms of the order dated 20-10-2005, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition, has gone beyond what was provided under the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal itself and therefore this writ petition, seeking for interference and to restrain the executing Court.2. The respondent, who had been terminated from service came to be reinstated in terms of the judgment and award in the following terms:The appeal is allowed.The order of termination of the appellant dated 10-6-1992 is set aside.The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant as Lecturer in Political Scie...
B.A. Bhavikumar Vs. Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: II(2006)ACC482; AIR2006Kant160; ILR2006KAR1164; 2006(2)KarLJ191
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. Petitioner is a stage carriage operator, operating his services in Coorg District. He had filed an application for grant of stage carriage permit to operate on the route between Coorg border and Somawarpet, via Kutta, Srimangala, Ponnampet, Gonikoppa, Virajpet, Madikere and back, one round trip a day. Since the said application was not considered by the 1st respondent he had filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P. Nos. 17455/2001 to 17459/2001. This Court by the order dated 31.5.2001 directed the Regional Transport Authority, Madikeri, (For short 'RTA') to consider the said application in accordance with law. Thereafter, the R.T.A. considered the application of the petitioner along with several other applications and passed a resolution as per Annexure 'B' on 27.8.2005 resolving to grant permit in favour of the petitioner. Timings have been assigned by the Secretary of the RTA as per Annexure 'D' on 24.9.2005. The permit was issued in favour of the pet...
Indian Institute of Science Vs. Gemini Construction Company
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR396(Kar); 2006(2)KarLJ550
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. This appeal arises out of a judgment rendered in a suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). The appeal is by the defendant in the suit.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to by their rank in the suit.3. The facts of the case are as follows.-The defendant had invited tenders in respect of certain civil construction works. The plaintiff was the successful tenderer and was awarded the contract in terms of an agreement dated 17-11-1986. The works were duly completed in May 1988. A final bill was prepared and furnished to the respondent on 2-3-1989. The plaintiff found major discrepancies in the bill and in this regard wrote to the defendant by letters, dated 1-5-1989 and 18-5-1989 calling upon it to re-examine the same and make payment. There was no response and it is in this circumstance, legal notice was issued and was followed up with a suit on the ground that the agreement betw...
Kshamaben Mahendrakumar Patel Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sc ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ594
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner herein has sought for a direction, directing the first respondent-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences ('University' for short), to reconsider the grant of approval to the admission of the petitioner in the light of the representations vide Annexure-C and D by treating her study and passing the A.I.S.S.C. (10+2) Examination from Akhila Bharathiya Madhyamic Shikshana Parishad, Delhi, as equivalent to II Pre-University Course of Karnataka State. Further, she has sought to issue a consequential direction to permit her to appear in the first year BDS examination on her completion of course of study.2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, she has studied and passed the examination conducted by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board Gandhinagar, in distinction and thereafter continued her Pre-University course and passed All India Senior Secondary School Examination for the academic year 2002-2003 in first class secur...
Dr. Sampathkumar B.V. S/O Dr. S.V. Pandith, Major Vs. Ms. Dr. K.G.V. L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC209; [2006]132CompCas160(Kar); 2006CriLJ2267; ILR2006KAR1730; 2006(3)KarLJ333
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The respondent-accused is prosecuted by way of a private complaint for committing the offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the Act).2. The gist of the complainant's case discloses that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 75,000/- in connection with film business. The cheque, Ex.P1 was issued towards repayment. When the complainant presented the cheque to the bank, it is dishonoured. Statutory notice is issued as required under Section 138 of the Act. Thereafter, a private complaint is filed. It is the contention of the accused that the cheques have been issued only as security for repayment of the loan and contends that a blank cheque is issued. Therefore, no prosecution can lie under Section 138 of the Act.3. The complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and marked in evidence the dishonoured cheque, copies of notice, postal acknowledgements, reply correspondence of the accused. The accused has marked in evidence documents, Exs. D1 to D6...
Abdul Sab Nabi Sab Kittur and ors. Vs. State by Savanoor Police Statio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: II(2006)DMC648
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appellant-accused are convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.2. The gist of the prosecution case discloses that the deceased Hassanbi is the wife of accused 1. Accused 2 and 3 are the parents of accused 1. The marriage of accused 1 with Hassanbi takes place about three years prior to the incident. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs. 3,000/- was agreed to be given. Out of it Rs. 1,000/- was given, however, it is agreed that a site would be conveyed in favour of accused 1. The agreed balance of Rs. 2,000/- and site were not given by the father of the deceased. Therefore, the accused 2 and 3 were constantly pestering the deceased to get the agreed amount and to see that the site is registered in favour of accused 1.3. At the time of incident, the deceased was six months pregnant. It was around the night hours accused 2 and 3 insi...
Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: (2008)16VST616(Karn)
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the correctness of the order dated November 28, 2003 passed in S.T.A. No. 1275 of 2001 by the Kamataka Appellate Tribunal setting aside the orders of the assessing authority and the first appellate authority and remitting the matter back to the first appellate authority for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made in the said order.2. The facts leading to this petition are as under:The petitioner is a public limited company (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'). The assessee was awarded contract in the year 1995-96 for construction of an indoor stadium within the premises of Sree Kanteerva Stadium at Bangalore. The work for construction of the stadium was commenced in the year 1996 and was completed in 1997-98. A part of the work was sub-contracted by the assessee and a...
Chandrashekar and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ291
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners, assailing the correctness of the impugned resolution dated 23-10-2003 vide Annexure-B and licence dated 5-11-2003 issued by the Town Municipal Council, Srirangapatna in favour of 5th respondent vide Annexure-C, and so also the order dated 29-12-2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura Sub-Division, Pandavapura vide Annexure-D, have presented this writ petition.2. The petitioners are claiming to be the permanent residents of Doddagaradi Street of Srirangapatna Town, Mandya District. The land measuring 5 to 6 feet width is connecting the main road of Srirangapatna. Fifth respondent is the Proprietor of an industrial unit called 'Hindustan Engineering Works'. Previously, 5th respondent had established the said industrial unit at Kuppannagaradi Beedi, Srirangapatna Town, Mandya District which was his own building. When things stood thus, the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District has initiated the proceedings against the 5th respondent, as...