Karnataka Court March 2006 Judgments

K. Santhosh Kumar Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person who claims to be belonging to kotegar community, who had availed of certain benefits available to a Scheduled Caste Community by not only getting the initial appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 1989 but also an out of turn promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in October 1992 against a post reserved for a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community and who is aggrieved by the denial of further promotion to the post of Executive Engineer as against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste Community people and on the premise that a vacancy exists for such persons in the cadre of Executive Engineer since from 1996.2. Petitioner though perhaps would have got even such promotion also, but for certain Government Order clarifying that kotegar community was not a community notified as Scheduled Caste Community; that the High Court having taken an emphatic view of the matter that it is only such communi...

Sri P. Ramesh Baipadithaya Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to the Deputy Commissioner-2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 10-3-2006, in the proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent. The said representation is to be found at Annexure 'A'.2. The facts in brier can be stated as under:There is a temple known as Channakeshava Temple situated at Sullia Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. It is governed by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The said temple is also declared as a public temple as contemplated under the said Act. It is the case of the petitioner that one Thudiyadka Vishnayya got himself declared as hereditary trustee of the said temple by making an application to the Deputy Commissioner, D.K. Mangalore as provided under Section 57 of the Act and he continued as a trustee of the said temple, without the knowledge of the petitioner, though the father of the petitioner was entitled for the said trusteeship....

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manjit Singh Sachdev

Court: Karnataka

N. Kumar, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, has referred the following questions of law for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure being the cost of goods given to the depositors at the time of accepting deposits received under the DLIP scheme, being deferred revenue expenditure (claimed by the assessee also as such) as revenue expenditure relating to the previous year assessable for the assessment year 1985-86?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that Form No. 6 signed by a person other than the person entitled to sign as required under Section 140 of the Income-tax Act as valid?2. In so far as the first question is concerned, in an almost identical situation, a Division...

Ramachandra Pesticides (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, has referred the following questions of law for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961:1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that penalty under Section 140A(3) for non-payment of tax on admitted income is leviable after holding that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for non-payment of the said tax ?2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that no leniency for assessees having reasonable cause for non-payment of self-assessment can be showed under law ?2. The relevant assessment year is 1983-84. The assessee filed a return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 1,94,530. The assessee paid an advance tax on due dates. However, the balance of Rs. 51,531 had not been paid within one month of filing of the return of income as required under Section 140A of the Act. The AO issued a show-cause notice on 27th March, 1986 and on 29th Dec, 1987 to which th...

Ramachandra Pesticides P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

N. Kumar, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, has referred the following questions of law for our opinion Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :1. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that penalty Under Section 140A(3) for non-payment of tax on admitted income is leviable after holding that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for non-payment of the said tax ?2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that no lenience for assessees having reasonable cause for non-payment of self-assessment can be shown under law?2. The relevant assessment year is 1983-84. The assessee filed a return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 1,94,530. The assessee paid advance tax on the due dates. However, the balance of Rs. 51,531 had not been paid within one month of filing of the return of income as required Under Section 140A of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice on March 27, ...

C.R. Nagaraja Shetty Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Esta ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1680; 2006(3)KarLJ540

H.L. Dattu, J. 1. By initiating proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act ('Act' for short), the acquiring authority has acquired 35 guntas of land in Sy. No. 4 situate at Beratena Agrahara village, Begur Hobli, for the purpose of widening the National Highway-7 ('NH-71 for short). The preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in this regard was issued on 29.11.1990 and a final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 27.5.1992 and possession of the notified land had been taken on 13.5.1992.2. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded a compensation for the acquired lands at Rs. 10/- per square feet by his award dated 9.2.1994. On reference, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 10/- per square feet to Rs. 27.50 per square feet, placing reliance on Ex. P3- the judgment and award passed in LAC No. 18/1991. Insofar as the compensation claimed for the coconut trees and barbed wire fencing, the Reference Court ha...

P.K. Abdul Zaleel Vs. State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secretary ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1756; 2006(3)KarLJ104

ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.9.2002 (Annexure-G) passed by the Tree officer and the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Madikeri ordering for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,64,306/- from the petitioner on the ground that the Government had incurred the aforesaid loss as a result of the petitioner failing to get the unauthorisedly felled trees released as per the order dated 5.10.1994 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 19118/94 which is produced as Annexure B.2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order - Annexure-G.3. Facts in brief: One K. Krishna Bhat had been granted permission to cut certain trees. On the allegation that he had cut certain trees unauthorisedly, proceedings were initiated in three cases in respect of 69 trees, 67 trees and 4 trees and the said Krishna Bhat offering to compound the offences arising there from, the respondents levied a composition fee of Rs. 5,000/-,...

Sharifa B.T. Mohamed Ali Jinnaha D/O Mohamed Ali Jinnah Vs. the Vice C ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR2220; 2006(3)KarLJ501

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner sought a direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to refund the tuition fee for the second mid third year to the petitioner. She further sought a direction to direct respondent No. 4 to take action against respondents 1, 2 and 3 for having acted contrary to law.2. The grievance made out by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that she was admitted to the first year MBBS course at the 3rd respondent Medical College for the academic year 2000-2001 as per Roll No. 000101051 and she has paid the necessary tuition fee in advance for the first, second and third year. She has discontinued her studies in the first year itself because she had developed intensive rheumatoid arthritis and she was forced to go back to her parents' place at Malaysia, The fattier of the petitioner has sent a communication dated 25,6.003 to the first respondent for refund of the tuition fee paid for the second and third year. When there is no response as such by the first...

S.T.P. Ltd., Reptd. by Its Branch Executive Vs. Usha Paints and Decora ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: III(2007)BC193; 2006(5)KarLJ323

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appellant-complainant prosecuted the respondent-accused for committing the offence punishable Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused had entrusted contact work to the complainant and towards remuneration the cheque Ex.P.3 is issued for Rs. 20000/-. The cheque is dishonoured on presentation. Statutory notice is issued and private complaint is filed.2. It is the defence contention that the cheque is issued only as a security and not for repayment of the debt. The trial court up held the contention and dismissed the complaint. Hence, the appeal.3. The distinction sought to be made between issuance of cheque for repayment of debt and issuance of cheque as a security for repayment of debt is illusory in law. Any cheque whether issued towards repayment of debt or liability as a security if dishonoured, the drawer of a cheque incurs liability of prosecution Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Unlike the other securities, the cheque, even if it is issued as sec...

Sri Srinivasa Oil and Rice Mill Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR2069

ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority dated 28-3-2002 (Annexure-B) passed under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short), confirming the order of the original authority dated 19-12-1995 (Annexure-C) to the extent of confiscating 262 quintals of paddy and 390 quintals of rice. The petitioner has also challenged the consequent notice dated 5-8-2002 (Annexure-A) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, respondent 2 demanding payment of Rs: 2,43,200/- being the value of the confiscated foodgrains. 2. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned order and the notice Annexures-A and B. 3. Both the original and the Appellate Authorities have found that the petitioner had contravened certain provisions of the two Control Orders passed under the Essential Commodities Act, namely Clauses 5 and 6 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Maintenance of Accounts, Disp...