Karnataka Court March 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.
B.K. Ningappa S/O Late Sri Kodappa and Jayanna S/O Late Sri Doddaninga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KarLJ438
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners, assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 16.5.2003 on the file of the 4th respondent -in appeal No. TPA(6)5:2002-03 vide Annexure-H, have presented this writ petition . Further, petitioners sought to declare that, the order passed by 4th respondent is without jurisdiction and same is illegal.2. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that, first petitioner and the father of the 2nd petitioner-Sri. Doddaningappa have purchased two vacant house sites under open public auction made by the erstwhile Banavara Municipality on 21.6.1971 measuring 45 x 50 ft. each, as they are the highest bidders in the said auction conducted by the predecessor of the 2nd respondent The bid amount have been paid by them on the spot and then Municipality had executed registered sale deeds in favour of the first petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner and since the date of purchase, petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of t...
Dr. Sudha B. Mattigatti D/O Basappa L. Mattigatii Vs. the Director Dir ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR1753
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to release the fees amount of Rs. 1,35,000/ to the petitioner that she has already deposited with the 1st respondent at the time of allotment, for the year 2004-05 and also to direct 1st respondent to sanction the fees of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- and further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents 2 and 3 to release the said amount for the academic year 2005-06.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, prayer-B sought for by the petitioner does not survive for consideration, on the ground that, already first respondent has passed the order sanctioning the fee of Rs. 1,35,000/- for the academic year 2004-05 and 2005-06. Hence, prayer-B sought for by the petitioner may be dismissed as having become infructuous. The above submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is paced on record. Accordingly, Prayer-...
Smt. Vijaya W/O Balasaheb Kulkarni and ors. Vs. Smt. Rukhmini Bai W/O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ515
1. The judgment and award dated 22-05-1997 passed in MVC No. 621/1992 by the Prl. Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Belgaum, has been assailed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation in the matter relating to death of husband of the first appellant and father of appellants 2 to 4. In fact, the mother of the deceased, one of the dependants, was also in the party array when the claim was instituted, but she expired at the stage of appeal.2. The claimants have basically challenged the award pointing out inadequacy in determining the loss of dependency to the claimants. As the respondent owner and the Insurer of the offending vehicle have not challenged the award, we confine our determination only to the points urged on behalf of the claimants regarding quantification of loss of dependency as also grant of compensation under the conventional heads.3. The case of the claimants is that on 21-02-1992 at about 1-00 PM Balasaheb Kulkari, a practicing Advocate was proceeding on Poona Bang...
State of Karnataka and anr. Vs. Century Automobiles
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: (2007)10VST41(Karn)
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The State has preferred this revision against the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. No. 69 of 2002, dated December 31, 2002 allowing the appeal and setting aside the levy of penalty under Section 28A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts leading to this dispute are as under:The respondent is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act dealing in Hero Honda Motor cycles. The goods vehicle bearing No. KA 14/8117 was transporting ten Hero Honda Motor cycles belonging to the respondent on August 28, 2001 to Harihar. As the said goods vehicle did not stop at the sales tax check-post, Harihar, it was chased, intercepted and brought to the sales tax check-post. The person-in-charge of the goods vehicle tendered a letter head issued by the respondent wherein it was stated that they are dispatching ten motor cycles to Nandi Motors, for demonstration. He did not produce the decla...
D. Jeevagan S/O Late K. Doraiswamy Vs. the Principal Mei Polytechnic a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: ILR2007(4)Kar4870; 2006(6)AIRKarR200(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. While the appellant was working as Head of Electronics and Communication Engineering Department of MEI Polytechnic, Bangalore, he was placed under suspension pending disciplinary action. On conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, he was removed from service with immediate effect as per the order dated 29.11.1999 of the Chairman, Governing Council, MEI Polytechnic, Bangalore (respondent-2). Aggrieved by the said order of removal from service, the appellant filed an appeal before the Director of Technical Education under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (the Act, for short). Even though the management contended that the said appeal was not maintainable and that the appellant had to file an appeal under Section 94 of the Act before the Karnataka Education Appellate Tribunal, the Director of Technical Education held that the removal of the appellant from service without the prior approval of the Director was bad in law. The Director also sent a let...
Karnataka State Aided Primary School Teachers Association (Regd.), Kan ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KarLJ473
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition, presented by the Association of the Karnataka State Aided Primary School Teachers' Association, joined by some other teachers, was one for quashing a portion of the order dated 9-6-2005 (copy at Annexure-B) passed by the State Government, which is a scheme for the purpose of rehabilitating the teachers who were facing threat of retrenchment in view of student, strength of the institutions having been come down and the scheme having been propounded for the purpose of rehabilitating such number of teachers who had been identified as excess upto 15-2-2005 and also a scheme providing for rehabilitation programme being in operation upto 31-5-2007, where after the scheme will be closed.2. The complaint of the petitioners is about the limiting of the benefit under the scheme only in respect of those who had been identified as excess upto 15-2-2005 as also keeping the. scheme open only upto 31-5-2007 which according to the petitioner is discr...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Industrial Credit and Development Syndi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: [2006]285ITR310(KAR); [2006]285ITR310(Karn)
N. Kumar, J.1. At the instance of Revenue the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question of law for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the IT Act (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that although the assessee is a financial company dealing in shares etc., the transactions of purchase of its own debentures through its nominees did not represent transactions involving its stock-in-trade and accordingly, in holding that the surplus arising from issue and repurchase of the debentures merely represented a capital receipt not subject to tax 2. The facts leading to this reference are as under :The assesses-company is engaged in the business of acting as a finance company dealing inter alia, in securities, debentures, shares, etc. and also granting loans and advances to other parties. In the year 1973, th...
T.S. Patil S/O. Shankaragouda Patil Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-oper ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: ILR2007KAR491; 2008(1)KarLJ227;
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2029/2006 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge as per the impugned order dated 13.2.2006. The respondents are the respondents in the said Writ Petition. The appellant, the 5th respondent and the 6th respondent were candidates in the election of the Member of the Committee of Bagalkot District Central Co-operative Union Limited (4th respondent herein) from the constituency of Milk Producers' Co-operative Society and Oil Seed Growers' Cooperative Society. In the said election, the 6th respondent M.S. Nalthwad was declared elected as he got 5 votes, the appellant got 2 votes and the 5th respondent did not get any vote. The election of the 6th respondent was challenged by the appellant in an Election Petition filed under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The Election Petition was numbered as 04/2003-04 and was decided by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bagalkot. The m...
Cit Vs. Industrlal Credit and Development Syndicate Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Kar)413
N. Mauk J.At the instance of revenue the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question of law for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that although the assessee is a financial company dealing in shares etc., the transactions of purchase of its own debentures through its nominees did not represent transactions involving its stock-in-trade and accordingly, in holding that the surplus arising from issue and repurchase of the debentures merely represented a capital receipt not subject to tax ?'2. The facts leading to this reference are as under :The assessee- company is engaged in the business of acting as a finance company dealing inter alia, in securities, debentures, shares, etc. and also granting loans and advances to other parties. In the year 1973, the a...
Handicrafts and Handloom Export Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: [2006]148STC445(Kar)
N. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, a Government of India undertaking, has challenged in this revision petition the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the three authorities to the effect that the raw silk imported by the petitioner from China is not exempted from payment of surcharge in pursuance of Notification No. 530 FD 190 (CSL. 93(I)] Bangalore, dated March 30, 1994, No. 590 FD 49 [CSL. 95(27)] Bangalore, dated March 31, 1995 and No. 630 FD 35 [CSL. 96(22)] Bangalore, dated March 30, 1996, issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. A few facts leading to this petition, are as under:The order of assessment relates to the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act dealing in raw silk yarn imported from outside the country. The petitioner imported raw silk from China during the aforesaid asses...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »