Karnataka Court September 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mr. Madhav Bhalachandra Mangalorkar S/O Late Mr. B.G. Mangalorkar Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR3675; 2006(6)KarLJ385
1. The appellant-husband was before the Prl. Judge, Family Court, in M.C.No. 453/91, a petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking for a decree of divorce to dissolve the marriage which was solemnised with the respondent on 20.3.1969. In support of his petition, the appellant had alleged cruelty and desertion on the part of the respondent-wife. In this regard, the appellant had contended that they had lived together as husband and wife at No. 4, 2nd cross, Nandidurg Road and at No. 3, Commissariat road, Bangalore, till 11.01.1986 and from the said marriage, they have two sons viz., Raman and Arjun, who were born on 24.5.1970 and 19.6.1971 respectively. The allegations in brief were that the appellant being a Horse trainer had to go to different places such as Bombay, Hyderabad, Ooty and Madras and the appellant's work and children suffered due to wayward behaviour of the respondent. Insofar as alleging cruelty the appellant had pleaded with regard to he...
Sri. Balaji Amenity Center, Represented by Its Promoters B.L. Prabhaka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-2006
Reported in: ILR2007(3)KAR2946; 2007(6)KarLJ426; 2006(6)AIRKarR545
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The matrix of the case can be summarised as follows:The petitioner is a project constituted by the promoters in the name and style of M/S. Balaji Amenity Center. The petitioners' case is that the said project is designed to support the growth and developmental activities in the IT Corridor and Export Promotion Industrial Park (for short 'EPIP') area, which intended to provide facilities such as Lodging, Service Suits (Apartments), Restaurants, Business Center and Executive Club, Banquet Hall and Conference Rooms, Health Club etc. The petitioners through its promoters had applied for allotment of half an acre of Civic Amenities plot in EPIP area, near SAP Labs on 8th April 2004. The said application was accompanied by earnest money forming a part of the price, remitted a total sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs) through Demand Draft drawn on Vyaya Bank dated 7th April 2004 and another Demand Draft drawn on Indian Over Seas Bank dated 8th April 2004. A ...
Sri. R. Nanjundegowda S/O. K.M. Ramaiah, Vs. the Revenue Secretary-ii, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-2006
Reported in: ILR2007KAR1540; 2007(2)KLJ529; 2006(6)AIRKarR523
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioners are the members of a 95 year old Sangha (Karnataka Vokkaligara Sangha). The matter arises in the following manner, which has a checkered career:The petitioners claim to be life members of the 3rd respondent Sangha, which is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act 1960. The said Sangha is established for the welfare of the members belonging to Vokkaliga community and for the purpose of running of Educational Institutions etc. It is the case of the petitioners that they and respondents 4 to 6 filed a petition before the 2nd respondent-Deputy Registrar of Societies to declare that the Special General Body meeting held on 03.03.2002 by the 3rd respondent- Sangha in respect of certain bye-laws are illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (For short 'the Act'). In the first instance the 2nd respondent accepted the amended bye-laws by his order dated 11th June 2003, Co...
A.B. Colaco S/O Late H.P.D. Colaco Vs. Coffee Board Represented by Its ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KCCR2527; 2006(6)AIRKarR405
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The facts of the case are:The petitioner had joined the services of the first respondent Coffee Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for brevity) on 30.7.1971 as a Junior Clerk. He was promoted to the post of an Assistant Sales Officer during September, 1974. He continued to hold the said post till the date of his voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1994 propounded by the Board. He was relieved from service on 3.7.1995, by which time he had put in about 24 years of service. In the matter of service conditions of the employees of the Board, it did not have any Service Rules of its own. The service conditions were regulated under the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules, as applicable to the Government servants of the Central Government. The Board employees were given the scales of pay as applicable to the Government servants of the Central Government and as revised from time to time. The pension of its retiring employees u...
Sri Andanur Rajashekar S/O Late Andanur Basappa Vs. Sri Vasavi Industr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-2006
Reported in: ILR2007(1)KarSN2; 2007(2)KLJ547; 2007(2)KCCRSN69; 2007(2)KCCR1213; 2007(1)AIRKarR497; AIR2007NOC429
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.1. Admit.Mr. Raghavendra Rao, learned Counsel appearing for defendant No. 6 has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:(i) Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform, their part of the contract and have satisfied the requirement of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and(ii) Whether the agreement Ex.P1 is prohibited and hit by Section 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.2. To appreciate the substantial questions of law raked by Mr. Raghavendra Rao, certain important facts are required to be noticed. The pleadings of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants can be summarized as follows:The plaintiff is a firm represented by its partners. The suit schedule property is a vacant plot of land Sy. No. 204/1 measuring 2 acres 2 guntas out of 5 acres 29 guntas of Kundavada village. The suit property originally belonged to one Andanur Basappa of Davanagere. The said property was all...
Rama Murthy S/O. Late Iyyakannu Mudaliar Major and Ravichandran S/O. R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)AIRKarR458; AIR2007NOC130
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These three cases are disposed of by this common order as they arise out of the same proceedings and involve common question of law and foot and to avoid repetition.2. RFA. No. 274/2001 is filed being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 1.6.95 passed by the court of XV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 3376/95. MFA. No. 3934/2000 is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.99 rejecting the application I.A.IV filed by the petitioner-appellant under Order 21 Rule 90 r/w. 47 and Section 151 CPC., in Execution Case No. 232/96 on the file of XIX Addl. City Civil Judge and CRP. No. 3297/2000 is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of XV Addl. City Civil Judge dated 3.3.98 on I.A.III.2. The essential foots of the case leading upto these appeals and revision with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial court are as follows:O.S.No. 3376/95 was filed by Sri. H.S. Goutham S/o. late Sri. Shanthilal against defendants 1 ...
B. Chikkanna and anr. Vs. Smt. K.M. Jagadamba
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KarLJ330
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appellants-tenants have suffered the decree of eviction and is in appeal. It is the contention that the measurement of the building is less than 14 sq. Meters and that the Karnataka Rent Act would attract and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case.2. The Counsel for the appellants submitted the above propositions on the ground that the internal measurements of the building as per the Commissioner's report is less than 14 square meters. The exterior measurement of the building if considered, the area is above 14 Sq. Meters. The contention that the carpet area of the building should be taken is untenable. The plinth area of the building is the criteria to assess the total measurements, the find out whether it comes within the purview of the Rent Act of otherwise.3. In the instant case, plinth of the area is more than 14 sq. Meters Hence, Civil Suit is maintainable. The tenancy is validly terminated by issuance of notice Under Section 106 ...
Bharat Timber Trading Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Kar)163; [2008]296ITR676(KAR); [2008]296ITR676(Karn)
1. In this reference, the following question of law is referred to us for our opinion in terms of the Income-Tax Act:Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the income from the sale of latex was not agricultural income/ ignoring the fact that the assessee had a right by way of profit-a-pander having interest in the land in the light of the decision of Supreme Court in Smt. Shanbha Bai v. State of Bombay 1958 AIR 532 and the fact that the applicant itself did not have to carry basis agricultural operations personally and also that the extraction of latex is an agricultural operation and the income derived was not Agricultural income?2. The assessee is a registered firm trading in timber. During the relevant assessment year, during the course of its business, the assessee acquired from a third party the right to cut the standing timber and take away the wood. There was some time lag between the date of agreement and the...
State of Karnataka by the Police Inspector Vs. R. Raju S/O Late Mahade ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ920; 2007(1)KarLJ189; 2007(1)AIRKarR178
1. The State is in appeal questioning the legality of the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, acquitting the respondents herein of the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:One Jawarapa the deceased was residing along with his wife Lalithamma (PW4) and daughter Rekha (PW5) at Muneshwaranagara, Mysore, and his house was amidst a number of houses together called as vatara and the houses of one Gowramma, accused Raju and Ravi were also situated in the same premises and on 10.2.1996 at about 8 p.m. when Jawarappa returned home, he heard some verbal quarrel going on in the house of one Mahadevi in connection with some loan transaction and Jawarappa went up the stairs and pacified the quarrel by advising the parties to come after Mahadevi's husband returns home. After this incident, around 9.20 p.m. Mahadevi's husband came there and again a quarrel took place ...
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mc Dowell and Company Ltd., ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Kar)219; [2007]291ITR107(KAR); [2007]291ITR107(Karn)
1. This appeal is by the revenue. Respondent filed his return of income for the assessment year 1994-95 on 8-6-1995. The department processed the return filed under the provisions of Section 143(1)(a) and as per intimation dated 30-10-1995 made a number of prima facie adjustments to the return filed. Such intimation dtd 30-10-1995 was rectified under Section 154 of the Act in terms of an order dtd 13-2-1996. Assessee filed an appeal against the intimation order dtd 30-10-1995 before the Commissioner of Income Tax, who as per the order dtd 27-6-1996 partly allowed the appeal. Assessee filed a second appeal to the tribunal. The tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. The tribunal in this appeal basically considered as to whether the prima facie adjustments made by the appellant in its intimation were acceptable or not. The tribunal was concerned with the merits of these adjustments made by the department. Subsequently, the department passed an order under Section 143(3) of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »