Karnataka Court August 2006 Judgments

O. Leelavathi W/O Late D. Omprakash and ors. Vs. M. Neelakanta Naidu S ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR4637; 2006(6)KarLJ617

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. These four appeals are arising out of a common orders passed on issue Nos.7 to 9 and on maintainability of the suit. The appellants in these appeals were plaintiffs in O.S. Nos. 2045/97 to 2048/97. Since the averments in the plaints in the four suits and the contentions in the written statements are similar, these appeals are heard together by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties.2. Four suits were filed by the plaintiffs against different defendants and out of them defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are common in all suits and only the defendant No. 2 in the suits are different. They are, Doraiswamy Naidu in O.S.No. 2045/97, T.N. Venkatebh in O.S.NO. 2046/97, E. Govinda Naidu in O.S.NO. 2047/9? and T. Krishnam Naidu in 2048/97.3. Four suits were filed by the plaintiff for the following reliefs:To cancel the sale deed dt. 13.9.1993 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant in all the suits and to cancel the sale deed dated 15.9...

Smt. Shankarawwa, W/O Kotrappa and Vs. the Land Tribunal, by Its Secre ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. One Basappa Wanageri died leaving behind his widow Parvathavva, two sons viz., Kotrappa and Virupanna together constituting a Hindu Undivided Family. Kotrappa had two wives of which 1st wife Chadramma, since deceased, had a son Basavantappa, who died, leaving behind his widow Nootanamma, the 3rd respondent herein. The 2nd wife Shankarawwa, the 1st petitioner, had a son by name Manjunath, the 2nd petitioner, given in adoption to Virupanna. Kotrappa filed form No. 11 under Section 66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, for short the Act, declaring 24 acres 36 guntas of 'B' class land as the total holding of the HUP. The Land Tribunal, by order dated 9.10.1981 Annexure B, as an assumption that what was declared was 26 acres 36 guntas of 'A' class land, equivalent to 145.10 acres of 'D' class land, determined 37 acres 10 guntas of 'D' class land to be excess of the ceiling limit. This order when called in question in W.P.40070/1993, was quashed by order date...

Shri H.V. Mohan Kumar S/O Late Venkatesh Vs. the Karnataka State Road ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The facts are as follows:The father of the petitioner was employed as a driver with the respondents. He had suffered a paralytic stroke, while on duty, in the year 1993. In September 1993 he was discharged from hospital and was advised to do light work. The petitioner's father had accordingly sought for alternative duty with the respondents as per representation dated 22.8.1994. In the meanwhile the respondents had called upon the petitioner's father to join duty at the earliest. The request to assign light duties was reiterated. The respondents refused to assign light duties and on the other hand advised taking voluntary retirement2. In April 1996 the petitioner's father was called upon to appear for a medical examination and it was certified that he was not fit for carrying on the work of a driver. The petitioner's father was compulsorily retired by an order dated 3.5.1996.3. The above action of the respondents was challenged by way of a writ petition in W....

Motor Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Kar)23; [2007]291ITR269(KAR); [2007]291ITR269(Karn)

ORDERITRC 617/981. Assessee is before us challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dtd 28-3-1995.Facts are as under;1.1 Assessee claimed allowance of the following liabilities for the assessment year 1978-79: i) Additional liability for gratuity in respect of the year 1977 as a result of actuarial valuation. Rs. 32,66,475/-ii) Provision for gratuity for 1976 based on actuarial valuation made in the accounts for 1976 disallowed in assessment year 1977-78 now claimed (paid over to the MICO gratuity Trust during 1977) Rs. 18,34,913/-iii) Provision for gratuity for Prior years based on actuarialValuation made in the accounts Rs. 14,84,649For 1971 disallowed in the Assessment for assessment year 1972-73 and upheld in appeal now claimed (paid over to MICO Trust during 1977) Rs. 14,84,649/-Besides these claims, certain other claims towards gratuity were also made. Regarding the claim of first item as above, the assessing officer disallowed in the assessment stage a sum relati...

Sri K. Vittal Shettigara S/O Bermu Shettigara Vs. State of Karnataka R ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The occupancy rights over ten cents of land together with a dwelling unit bearing Sy. No. 128/6B1 in Derebail of Mangalore, belonging to the petitioner was conferred on the respondents 3 to 5, the children of deceased Nagamma, the applicant in form No. 7, under Section 48A(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, for short the Act, by order dated 16.11.2002, Annexure 'A' of the Land Tribunal, Mangalore. Hence this petition.2. The petitioner contends that the deceased Nagamma, his maternal aunt, was permitted to stay in the dwelling house purchased by him under a deed of conveyance registered on 24.8.1972, as document No. 764/72-73, in the office of the Sub-Registrar Mangalore, since the petitioner, an employee of the Karnataka Regional Engineering College was provided with a staff quarters for residence. According to the petitioner the property conveyed in the Sale Deed was described as a house site with a dwelling house, well and land appurtenant thereto,...

Abdul Wahab Sab S/O HussaIn Sab and Vs. T.V. Satyapal S/O Venkoba Rao

Court: Karnataka

V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Since this matter was heard a year back and directed to post for dictating judgment, learned Counsel for the parties are heard afresh and I proceed to dictate the judgment.2. The facts that gave rise to this appeal are, respondent/plaintiff is the landlord and appellants/defendants are tenants. The parties are referred to as per their rank in the trial Court.3. The plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendants by issuing notice and calling upon them to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises. Since the defendants failed to comply with the same, the plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment. The defendants resisted the suit by filing objections admitting the jural relationship but denying service of notice. The trial Court framed issues and the suit went for trial. The plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 and marked documents. He was also cross-examined. Despite granting sufficient opportunity, defendants did not examine any witness a...

Shimbu Imports and Exports (Private) Limited (In Liquidation) Vs. Avin ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ583

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These applications filed under Section 538(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, are disposed of by this common order as they involve common questions of law and fact.2. Applications have been filed averring that the Company has been ordered to be wound up by an order passed by this Court in company petition referred to in the applications and thereafter, the Official Liquidator attached to this Court became the Liquidator of the said Company by virtue of Section 449 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the 'Act') and thereafter, the Official Liquidator issued notice to the Ex-Directors to hand over the books of account and records of the Company. However, the Ex-Directors and Officers of the Company, who are arrayed as respondents did not produce the account books or the documents as required by the Official Liquidator and wherefore, the applications are filed seeking for a direction to the respondents ...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Mulder India (P) Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(212)ELT319(Kar)

R. Gururajan, J.1. Revenue is before us in this appeal.2. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Decalc on Trasfers (Ceramic Trasfers). The respondent holds Central Excise Registration Certificate in terms of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent has availed the benefit of Small Scale Industry in terms of the Notification No. 1/1993 dated 28-2-1993.3. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show cause notice, denying the benefit of Small Scale Industry in terms of the Notification No. 1/1993 dated 28-2-1993 and demanded the respondent to pay appropriate duty. The same was confirmed in terms of the order dated 14-8-1997. Thereafter, the respondent paid duty at the tariff rate under protest. The respondent preferred an appeal. The appeal was allowed. The Appellate Authority ordered consequential benefit in terms of the order dated 23-10-1999. In the light of the order of the Appellate Authority, the respondent filed an application seeking for refund of t...

Sri Aralappa Son of Sri Chowrappa, Major Vs. Sri Jagannath Son of Late ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2007Kant91; ILR2007KAR339

N. Kumar, J.1. These two appeals arise, out of a common judgment but two decrees, passed by the 10th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O.S. No. 10260/80 and O.S.No. 10261/80 after a common trial. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and are disposed of by this common Judgment. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to, as they are referred to in the Original Suit.2. O.S.No. 10260/80 was filed by Arokyaswamy, the plaintiff, against the defendant Jagannath for the relief of declaration, that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the plaint schedule property, for permanent injunction and for other consequential reliefs. Similarly, O.S.No. 10261/80 is filed by Aralappa, the plaintiff against the very same Jagannath, the defendant for the same relief. The suit schedule property in these two suits is two different bits of land in the same survey number.3. The land beating Sy. No. 47/2 of Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North...

Narayana Swamy M. S/O. Chikkamunivenkatappa Vs. Dr. Mohan C. S/O. Chik ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The petitioner is the unsuccessful candidate at the 12th assembly elections to the Karnataka State Legislature from No. 72, Bethamangala (S.C.) Assembly Constituency. The respondents 1 to 7 are the other contesting respondents and respondent No. 3 is successfully declared as elected by margin of 547 votes ahead of the petitioner who had secured next higher number of votes. The polling and counting of votes for parliamentary and assembly constituencies held simultaneously. The petitioner after counting of votes, submitted a petition to the Returning Officer objecting the result on the ground that the electronic voting machines sent for polling in parliamentary and assembly elections are wrongly swapped at the time of polling. The Returning Officer after scrutiny, rejected the petition by order at Ex. P 29.2. The petitioner in the election petition contends that there is no swapping at the polling stage, but according to his information from the records and cou...