Karnataka Court April 2006 Judgments

J.L. Morison (India) Ltd. Rep. by Its General Manager, Mr. Deepak Mali ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal is preferred by M/S J.L. Morison (India) Ltd., (for short 'the company') aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dtd. 17-4-1998 passed in WP No. 29505/1996.2. Facts in brief are as under;The Company M/S J.L. Morison (India) Ltd., is engaged in the manufacture of Sutures. Due to compelling circumstances, management suspended its manufacturing operations. Labour department initiated conciliation proceedings, Conciliation ended in failure. The Government construed suspension of operations as lockouts, prohibited the same, vide its order dtd 1-1-1996. The prohibitory order was challenged in WP No. 1574/1996. In the meantime, the company made an application dtd 19-2-1996 to the State Government under Section 25(O) of the ID Act and sought permission to close down its undertaking at Bangalore. The same was rejected by the Government. The said order of rejection was challenged in this Court in WP No. 19042/1996. Thereafter a show cause notice dtd 27-6-1996 was issued...

Shanthinagar House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. the State of ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The petitioner is a society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. It is contended that lands in Survey Nos. 1, 2/1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Srinivagalu Ammeniaare, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and Survey No. 12/1 of Jakkasandra village, Bangalore South Taluk, came to be acquired by the State for the benefit of the petitioner society and its members, and the proceedings were completed in the year.2. That the petitioner society has in turn allotted sites to its members and conveyance of the same by registered documents in favour of such members is substantially completed.3. It is the petitioner's complaint that Respondents 3 to 8 who are erstwhile owners of the acquired land (to the extent of 60 acres 20 guntas out of 66 acres 22 guntas acquired) are seeking to alienate the very lands and that the said respondents have, in collusion with Respondents 9 to 15, executed sale deeds and have even got the same registered...

N.M. Vishwanath Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Karnataka

N. Kumar, J.1. This reference arises out of the order of the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench dt. 13th June, 1995 made in ITA No. 985/Bang/1989, under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assesses. The questions referred for our opinion are as under:1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal is right in holding that reassessment proceedings were rightly initiated for the asst. yr. 1972-73 and the ITO was not seized of the information relating to acquisition of house property, although the same was reflected in wealth-tax records for the asst. yr. 1973-74 and when that records were available when original assessment under IT Act was made ?2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was justified in restricting the interest levied under Section 139(8) and under Section 217(1A) of the Act to the figures in original assessment ?2. Brief facts leading to this refere...

Baburao and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 17-11-1982 passed by respondent 2 in case No. LRF/233, 234 and 235 of 1976-77 vide Annexure-A.2. Brief facts leading to this case are that the petitioners herein have filed application Form 7 under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for grant of occupancy rights in respect of land survey No. 15 measuring 20 acres 38 guntas situated at Janapur village, Basavakalyan Taluk, Bidar District. Their application came to be rejected by an order dated 21-10-1976. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners preferred Writ Petition Nos. 22406 to 22408 of 1980 before this Court. This Court, by its order dated 25-6-1981 quashed the aid order and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. After the remand the Land Tribunal issued notices to the parties and con...

Dr. G. Jayakumar S/O M.J. Gurunathan Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. by It ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ277

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner - Dr. Jayakumar is before this Court seeking for a mandamus directing the fourth respondent to admit him for MD Pharmacology course for the academic year 2003-04 on the following facts.2. Petitioner obtained 1073 rank in the post graduation entrance examination conducted by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (for short 'the university') and the petitioner had opted for the seat in MD Pharmacology at the fourth respondent college. He was allotted the same vide allotment letter dated 24-11-2003 in the casual round vacancy held by the 2nd respondent. Despite an allotment and despite a direction subsequently by the university, the college refused admission to the petitioner. Petitioner in these circumstances is before me seeking for various directions.3. On receipt of notice, the fifth respondent has filed their short reply affidavit on behalf of the Medical Council of India. It would refer to Section 10-A and various case laws in support of i...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mysodet (P) Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2008]305ITR242(KAR); [2008]305ITR242(Karn)

N. Kumar, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question of law for our opinion, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction under Section 80HHC is allowable in the hands of the assessee, when the assessee had not derived any profit from the export business?2. The facts leading to this reference are as under:The assessee is a limited company. It purchased 105 computers and peripherals for Rs. 90,91,063 and exported them and realised export sales of Rs. 90,91,063. Thus the assessee did not derive any profit from this transaction. The Income-tax Officer allowed the claim of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act at Rs. 15,81,389. The Commissioner of Income-tax, in exercise of his power under Section 263 of the Act, held that the assessee...

B.N. Reddy Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR2234; [2006]284ITR245(KAR); [2006]284ITR245(Karn)

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Heard Sri K.P. Kumar, learned senior advocate appearing for Sri A. Shankar for petitioner and Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Central Government standing counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the material on record.2. The notices dt. 31st Jan., 2003 issued under Section 158BC of the IT Act 1961 (Act for short) vide Annex.-B and dt. 30th Jan., 2003 issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act vide Annex.-C are called in question in this writ petition.3. This Court does not find any illegality in the notice Annex.-B issued under Section 158BC of the Act. By issuing said notice, the AO has merely requested the petitioner to prepare a true and correct return of his total income including the undisclosed income assessable for the block period. Thus, it is open for the petitioner to file his statement in answer to the said notice at Annex.-B. Hence, the challenge to notice at Annex.-B must fail and no interference is called for by this Court.4. I...

B.N. Reddy Vs. Asstt. Cit and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Kar)578; [2006]284ITR745(KAR); [2006]284ITR745(Karn); [2006]155TAXMAN295(Kar)

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.Heard Sri K.P. Kumar, learned senior advocate appearing for Sri A. Shankar for petitioner and Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Central Government standing counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the material on record.2. The notices dated 31-1-2003 issued under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act 1961 (Act hereinafter referred to as) vide Annex.-B and dated 30-1-2003 issued under section 142(2A) of the Act vide Annex. - C are called in question in this writ petition.3. This court does not find any illegality in the notice Annex.-B issued under section 158BC of the Act. By issuing said notice, the assessing officer has merely requested the petitioner to prepare a true and correct return of his total income including the undisclosed income assessable for the block period. Thus, it is open for the petitioner to file his statement in answer to the said notice at Annex.-B. Hence, the challenge to notice at Annex.-B must fail and no interference i...

Advocates' Association Vs. the District Registrar and Registrar of Soc ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. Even though the matters are listed for preliminary hearing, with consent, they are taken up for final disposal as service is complete.2. W.P. No. 2721 of 2006 is filed by the Advocates Association represented by its General Secretary. W.P. No. 2955 of 2006 is filed by two members of the Governing Council. Mr. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel is appearing for respondent 4 in W.P. No. 2721 of 2006 and Mr. D.L.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel has entered appearance for respondent 2. In W.P. No. 2955 of 2006 Mr. B.N. Prasad, learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent 1. Respondents 2 and 3 are represented by Mr. Ravivarma Kumar and Mr. D.L.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel and respondent 4 is represented by Mr. Jayakumar Patil, learned Senior Counsel.3. A situation has arisen in the present context where the Advocates Association represented by the General Secretary is before this Court questioning the order passed by the first responde...

Patel Byrappa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2006Kant200; ILR2006KAR3499

1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 10630 and 10631 of 1986 disposed of on 10-4-1996 whereby the writ petitions filed by them challenging the notifications issued for acquisition of the lands in dispute have been dismissed.2. Petitioners are the owners of the lands bearing Sy. No. 23/2 measuring 36 guntas and Sy. No. 23/4 measuring 23 guntas situated at Nayandahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore proposed to acquire the lands in question along with certain other lands for the purpose of formation of house sites by ITI Employees' Housing Co-operative Society Limited-4th respondent herein (for short, 'the Society'). The Preliminary Notification was published in the Gazette in LAQ.(1) CR 681 of 1983/84, dated 25-2-1985. Consequent upon the issue of Preliminary Notification, the petitioners filed their objections on 4-4-1985 inter alia contending that the acqui...