Karnataka Court July 2006 Judgments

Smt. Avvamma Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner states that Malakappa had two sons by name Gurulingappa and Bhimshya. Gurulingappa had three sons one of whom was Adiveppa and his wife Kamalawa. Bhimshya had three sons viz., Malekappa, Mahadevappa and Basavanthappa. The petitioner claims to be the daughter of Bhimshya and sister of Basavanthappa. The petition averments disclose that in a partition between Gurulingappa and Bhimshya, the land measuring 10 acres 38 guntas being a portion of Sy. No. 198A/4 of Sirakanahalli Village, Indi Taluk, fell to the share of Gurulingappa and the remaining portion in favour of Bhimshya. After the death of Gurulingappa, his son Adiveppa exercised rights over the said immovable property, and on his death, his widow Kamalawa, the 7th respondent, is said to have succeeded to the estate of the deceased.2. It is the assertion of the petitioner that by the wardi (report) during the year 1991, the revenue authorities entered the name of Adiveppa's widow, 7th respond...

Avvamma Vs. the State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner states that Malakappa had two sons by name Gurulingappa and Bhimshya, Gurulingappa had three sons one of whom was Adiveppa and his wife Kamalawa, Bhimshya had three sons viz., Malekappa, Mahadevappa and Basavanthappa. The petitioner claims to be the daughter of Bhimshya and sister of Basavanthappa. The petition averments disclose that in a partition between Gurulingappa and Bhimshya, the land measuring 10 acres 3 8 guntas being a portion of Sy.No. 198A/4 of Sirakanahalli village, Indi taluk, fell to the share of Gurulingappa and the remaining portion in favour of Bhimshya. After the death of Gurulingappa, his son Adiveppa exercised rights over the said immovable property, and on his death, his widow Kamalawa, the 7th respondent, is said to have succeeded to the estate of the deceased.2. It is the assertion of the petitioner that by the vardi (report) during the year 1991, the revenue authorities entered the name of Adiveppa's widow, 7th respond...

Hanumantharaya Vs. the Secretary Karnataka Public Service Commission

Court: Karnataka

ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The Petitioner was a Candidate for K. A.S probationer. Since he secured less marks in compulsory English, he applied for re-totalling. There was no change in the marks obtained even after re-totalling. He approached the Kamataka Administrative Tribunal seeking revaluation. In view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in (Promod Kumar Srivastavaa v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commissionsion 2004 SCC (L and S) 883 : AIR 2004 SC 4116 ,' the Tribunal dismissed the application by its order at Annexure-B dated 6-4-2006. Aggrieved by the same the Petitioner has filed this writ Petition seeking to quash the said order and to direct the respondent to consider revaluation of his paper.2. In the aforementioned decision, it is held that in the absence of any provision for revaluation in the rules, Candidates have no right to seek re-valuation. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly declined to entertain the grievance of the Petitioner. The impugned order is perfec...

S. Gopal S/O Srinivas Achar and N. Rajalakshmi W/O S. Gopal Vs. the St ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007CriLJ484; 2006(6)KarLJ263

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioners are Accused No. 5 and Accused No. 6. They have questioned the order passed by the learned Trial Judge allowing the application of the prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr.PC.2. The matter arises in the following manner:One Kalavathi wife of accused No. 1 Y.N. Sridhar Murthy has lodged a complaint on 14.3.2000 before the Jeevanbheemanagar Police Station stating that she was married to A-1 on 14.5.1981. During marriage, her father had given one set of gold bangles, one set of ear rings and Mati with other gold ornaments including necklace weighing 30 grams. A-1, hex husband was also given a dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. In the wedlock, she has given birth to two children one daughter and one son who are aged 18 years and 16 years respectively. The complainant would state that all the accused persons demanded additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- and were giving pinpricks but however, her father-in-law Narayanachari used to mediate but however after his ...

B. Vishwanath S/O Shankappa Poojary Barenebettu Mane Vs. the State Rep ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007CriLJ1994

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The case of the prosecution that on 27.9.2000 at 8.30 p.m. the accused trespassed into the house, assaulted his sister-in-law-PW 1 with sickle and also assaulted his mother-P.W.2 with sickle.2. The wound certificate of P.W.I discloses that an incised wound on the light hand, linear abrasion on the back of trunk over the region of left scapula and linear abrasion on the right scapula region.3. The wound certificate of P.W. 2 discloses incised wound on the occipital region of scalp and tenderness at the left clavicle resulting in fracture of left clavicle and first metatarsal bone.4. P.W. 1 and 2 testified to the overt acts of the accused in causing injuries on them. P.W.3 is an eye witness and sister of P.W.I. She supports the prosecution version. The wound certificate and evidence of the doctor also corroborate the version of P.Ws 1 and 2.5. In some of the crimes, the blood stains on incriminating articles serve as corroborative piece of evidence to prove the guil...

Cit Vs. Motor Industires Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006]286ITR531(KAR); [2006]286ITR531(Karn)

The judgment of the court was delivered by.The revenue is before us seeking an answer to the following two questions of law :"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in directing the assessing officer not to deduct income-tax refunds of earlier years from the book profits in computing the deduction under section 32AB ?2. Whether, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the income-tax refunds for earlier years are required to be added back for the purpose of allowing deductions under section 32AB(3) is specified and exhaustive not to give scope for addition of refund of income tax of earlier years as such ?"2.The facts as narrated in the statement of facts are as under :3.The assessee had claimed a deduction under section 32AB of the Income Tax Act of a sum of Rs. 4,94,53,038. The assessee had worked out the profits eligible for deduction under section 32AB in a sum of Rs. 24,72,65,191 and had accordingly ...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Company Vs. Motor Industries Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. Revenue is before us seeking for an answer to the following two questions of law;1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is correct in law in directing the assessing officer not to deduct income tax refunds of earlier years from the book profits in confuting the deduction under Section 32AB?2. Whether the tribunal is correct in law in holding that the income tax refunds for earlier years are required to be added back for the purpose of allowing deductions under Section 32AB(3) is specified and exhaustive not to give scope for addition of refund of income tax of earlier years as such?2. The facts as narrated in the statement of facts is as under;The assessee had claimed a deduction under Section 32AB of the IT Act of a sum of Rs. 4,94,53,038. The assessee had worked out the profits eligible for deduction under Section 32AB in a sum of Rs. 24,72,65,191 and bad accordingly claimed a deduction of 20% thereof in its return of income. The assessing offi...