Karnataka Court August 2006 Judgments

Dr. Madav S/O Shankar Pandit Vs. the State of Karnataka R/P Its Chief ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person who claims that he was functioning as a Trustee of Shree Vinayaka Dev Temple at Idagunji, a public charitable Trust which had been registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 [for short '1950 Act'].2. The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 has been repealed in terms of the provisions of Section 78(2)(a) of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Act, 1997 [for short '1997 Act'].3. It appears every person who were the trustees and including the co-trustees of the very Trust of which the petitioner claims to be a Trustee had filed writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 78(2)(a) of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Act, 1997, but failed in their attempt before a learned single Judge of this Court.4. Undaunted, such petitioners have pursued their efforts by filing writ appeals and as submitted by Sri Venkataramana, learned Counsel for the petitioner that such w...

Melco Precisions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kundremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERShylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is a clear abuse of this Court. Though the petitioner described as one invoking the provisions of Article 227 also, I do not find anything to invoke the provisions of Article 227 as the proceedings are original proceedings before this Court, seeking for a restraint order from this Court, to restrain the first respondent M/s Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Ltd., from enforcing certain bank guarantees that the petitioner had issued in favour of the first respondent through its bankers-second respondent-Indian Bank.2. Submission of Sri Raghu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the first respondent is not justified in invoking the bank guarantees when the petitioner has fully performed all its obligations under the contract entrusted to the petitioner and in such circumstance the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court for relief.3. To make good the case of the petitioner, cons...

M.H. Malik Vs. T. Venkataswamy Reddy

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ344

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition is directed against the order dated First July, 2006 on an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in pending O.S. No. 8329 of 1995 on the file of the Court of XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-16), rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement.2. The application for amendment of the written statement filed by the first defendant in the suit was undisputedly after a period of four years of amendment of the plaint in the suit. The Trial Court being of the view that allowing the application will alter the nature of the defence set up by the applicant-defendant, rejected the application. Aggrieved by this order, the present petition is filed.3. Submission of Sri Ramalingam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Trial Court was of the erroneous view that allowing the application would alter the nature of defence; that earlier pleadi...

Sri. K.S. Lokaiah S/O Sri. K.K. Sannaiah Vs. M.B. Shivaraya S/O Late M ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR390; 2008(1)KarLJ146; 2007(2)KCCR839&1076; 2007(1)AIRKarR532; AIR2007NOC431&711

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioner is the applicant in I.A. No. III in Execution Case No. 39/96 on the file of the Additional civil Judge (junior Division), Madikeri. The said application is filed under Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The executing Court after hearing the objections of respondents has rejected the said application on the ground that the claim of the petitioner to come on record in the said execution proceedings is barred by statute. The impugned Order is at Annexure-C.2. Few facts are necessary to be stated to appreciate the controversy in question.3. One Smt. Neelamma had filed a suit in O.S. No. 436/1961 on the file of the Munsiff, Marcara, against one Mr. M.R. Balliappa and Mr. M.R. Subbanna for declaration and possession of the suit schedule properties. After contest, the suit was decreed on 30.09.1964 with a direction to deliver the possession of the properties mentioned in 'A, B, c, D' schedule in...

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Karnataka Minerals and Manufacturin ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Kar)613

ORDER1. Revenue is before us aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in the case on hand.2. Assessee is a limited company. While completing the wealth tax assessment, Wealth Tax Officer brought the value of 'Jeep' to wealth tax which was claimed by the assessee as exemption. The assessee claimed that 'Jeep' is not a motor car. Wealth Tax Officer did not accept the contentions of the assessee. On appeal, the Commissioner rejected the case of the assessee. The Tribunal, in second appeal, accepted the case of the assessee and ruled that 'Jeep' is not a motor car. In the circumstances, a reference was sought for and reference is made with regard to the following question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the word 'Motor Car' used for the purpose of levy of Wealth Tax on company would not comprehend 'Jeep'? 3. The respondent, despite notice, has not chosen to enter appearance.4. The short question that arises for ou...

Kamala W/O Dinga Ankolekar Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Rep ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2007Kant22; 2007(3)KarLJ379

N.K. Patil, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 25th June 2001 in R.A. No. 26/1997 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Karwar, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 4th April 1997 in O.S. No. 148/1992 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Karwar.2. The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that, she is the wife of late Sri. Dinga Ira Ankolekar, resident of Mudga in Amadalli in Karwar Taluk. Late Sri. Dinga Ira Ankolekar expired on 24th February 1989 and that, the said deceased person had insured his life with the defendant - respondent - Insurance Corporation under Policy No. 75656045 dated 28th March 1986 under table term 14-17. The respondent- defendant had assured the said late Sri. Dinga Ira Ankolekar that, in case of his death a sum of Rs. 50,000/- would be paid to his nominee and legal heir. Since Sri. Dinga Ira Ankolekar expired on 24th February 1989, the plaintiff appellant being the only...

Suvardhan Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Kar)226; [2006]287ITR404(KAR); [2006]287ITR404(Karn)

ORDER1. M/s Suvardhan of Bangalore is before us seeking an opinion in the light of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 405/Bang/1997 dated 22.12.1997.2. The assessee is a registered firm which came into existence by way of partnership deed dated 23.7.1986. Partnership consists of three persons. On 1.7.1998 one of the partners retired and the other two continued the partnership in terms of partnership deed dated 17.10.1988. Survey was conducted in the business premises of the assessee. It came to light that the firm had been dissolved and the business had been taken over by one of the partners Smt. Anuradha Maruthi Gokarn, It was also noticed that the partnership was dissolved on 1.4.1992 and the assets and liabilities had been taken over by the said lady. The assessing officer proposed to apply Section 45(4) of the Act. Notice was issued. Assessee filed a Nil-return. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment under Section 144 of the Act charging capital gain in the ha...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Himatasingike Seide Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Kar)106; [2006]286ITR255(KAR); [2006]286ITR255(Karn)

ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. Revenue is before us seeking for an answer to the following question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer allowing the claim of the assessee for adjustment of the unabsorbed depreciation against the income from other sources was in order and hence cannot be considered to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of revenue and in cancelling the order Under Section 263? 2. Facts are as under:The Respondent-assessed is 100% export oriented industrial unit in terms of the provisions of Section 10-B. Any profits and gains derived by it from the said export oriented undertaking are not liable to be included in the total income of the assessee. Although the industrial operations are stated to have been commenced in assessment year 1988-89, the assessee however, did not claim the benefits Under Section 10-B in assessme...

Suvardhan Vs. Cit

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006]156TAXMAN229(Kar)

ORDERGururajan, J. M/s. Suvardhan of Bangalore is before us seeking an opinion in the light of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 405 /Bang/ 1997, dated 22-12-1997.2. The assessee is a registered firm which came into existence by way of partnership deed dated 23-7-1986. Partnership consists of three persons. On 1-7-1998 one of the partners retired and the other two continued the partnership in terms of partnership deed dated 17-10-1988. Survey was conducted in the business premises of the assessee. It came to light that the firm had been dissolved and the business had been taken over by one of the partners Smt. Anuradha Maruthi Gokarn. It was also noticed that the partnership was dissolved on 1-4-1992 and the assets and liabilities had been taken over by the said lady. The assessing officer proposed to apply section 45(4) of the Act. Notice was issued. Assessee filed a Nil return. Thereafter, the assessing officer concluded the assessment under section 144 of the Act charging capital...

C.D. Venkataramana Shetty S/O. Dasappa Shetty Vs. the State of Karnata ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The unsuccessful applicant before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, 'K.A.T.' for short, has filed this writ petition questioning the correctness of its order dated 18-6-1997 passed in Application No. 5358/1995 in dismissing the same by not interfering with the order of dismissal passed against him by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 17-9-1993, urging various legal contentions and prayed to set-aside and quash the order of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority.2. Except the relevant facts and rival legal contentions, since the K.A.T. has elaborately adverted to the facts and evidence adduced before the enquiry officer, we do not propose to elaborately refer to the aforesaid aspects.3. The petitioner was working as a Chief Officer, Grade-IV, in the Kamataka Municipal Administrative Service. At the time of passing of an order of dismissal against him, he was working as a Chief Officer, Sakieshpur Town Municipal Council. The disciplin...