Karnataka Court January 2007 Judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United Breweries Limited Represente ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Kar)385; [2007]292ITR188(KAR); [2007]292ITR188(Karn)

R. Gururajan, J.Income Tax Appeal No. 25/20001. Revenue aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dtd 4-11-1999 is before us. The following questions of law are framed;1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that in the case of amalgamation of borrower with the lender, the entries to be passed in the books of the amalgamated company would be different from the situation where no amalgamation takes place?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in allowing the deduction claimed for irrecoverable interest without noting that on 1-4-1994, ie., the first day of the accounting year, the debtors and the debts due to them had ceased to exist?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal was right in holding that the irrevocable interest was an allowable deduction, without noting the principle of mutuality and after holding that such interest was allowable in not noting ...

Sri Ismail S/O Imamsab Navalur and ors. Vs. Hubli-dharwad Urban Develo ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2007Kant87; ILR2007(1)Kar940; 2007(3)KLJ57; 2007(2)KCCR1248; 2007(2)AIRKarR545; AIR2007Kant87

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. Petitioners, residents of Hubli, of whom 2 and 4 claim to be house wives, while the others businessmen, responded to the public auction notice dated 8.9.2006, by depositing Rs. 5,000/- each, offering the highest bids on 14.09.2006, and depositing 25% of the bid amount on 15.09.2006, for purchase of corner sites, in S.R.No. 131/2, of Mariyana Thimmasagara Taluk, Hubli. It is the assertion of the petitioners that on account of the failure on the part of the respondent in not communicating the acceptance of their bids, were unable to deposit the balance of the amount, in terms of the auction notice. According to the petitioners, their offers being far, in excess of the value fixed by the State Government were entitled to be declared as successful bidders. It is alleged that the respondent by resolution dated 9.11.2006, Annexure-F, cancelled the auction held on 14.9.2006, on the premise, that the sites put up for auction, being valuable, would fetch more than the...

R. Sandhyarani W/O. T.A. Panduranga Setty Vs. M. Mylarappa S/O. Late M ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ524; ].2007(6)AIRKarR290

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of dismissal of the eviction petition filed by her in H.R.C. 904/01 on the file of the XII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, whereby the trial court dismissed the eviction petition filed by her against the respondent Mylarappa under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner stated to be the absolute owner of the petition schedule premises and the respondent is her tenant as per rental agreement dated 7.6.1999. The rent was Rs. 500/- per month for a period of two years from 7.6.1999 and thereafter the rent was enhanced to Rs. 2000/- per month. The case of the petitioner is that her family consists of six members including her husband, three daughters and son. The present premises in occupation of the petitioner is an old building, hence the petitioner is intending to shift her family to the petition schedule premises. Since the ...

Smt. Sharadamma and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ200; ILR2007(2)Kar1943; 2007(3)KCCRSN127; 2007(3)AIRKarR521

ORDER Ajit J. Gunjal, J.1. The earlier proceedings prior to filing of this writ petition had a chequered career. The facts germane for the disposal of this writ petition can be succinctly stated as follows.-The petitioners claim that they are the owners of the lands in question, i.e., Sy. No. 14/6B measuring 37 guntas and Sy. No. 12/5B measuring 23 guntas of Thavarekere Village which according to them was of the ownership of one late S.K. Venkateshappa. According to the petitioners, at the time of issuance of preliminary notification for acquisition, the name of late S.K. Venkateshappa, husband of first petitioner was shown as registered kathedar. After the acquisition, the lands vested with the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, 'the Authority) and the same was allotted by them to the third respondent-Society along with certain other lands.2. The undisputed facts are that the lands in question along with some other lands was notified for acquisition for a public purpose, for ...

Smt. Chandra Bai W/O Narasoji Rao (Since Dead, by Her Lrs. Sri R. Nara ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this petition, petitioners have sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the 1st respondent dated 8.10.1998 -annexure E and to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 4 to restore status quo ante in respect of the petitioners' property and to pay damages and also to direct the 7th respondent / CBI to take up investigation in the matter and to bring the guilty to books.2. According to the 1st petitioner, they were said to be in possession of property bearing No. 174/2 measuring 30 x 40 ft. situate at Cottonpet Main Road, Bangalore exercising the act of ownership from the past several years. The said property was earlier in the possession of his predecessor in interest namely one Yelloji Rao and on his death, the petitioner continued with the possession and his father was carrying on the business in the name and style of Lakahmi Furniture Works and then as an electrical contractor and later, a provision stores...

Smt. Laxmavva W/O Shivappa Padasalagi Vs. the State of Karnataka, Repr ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR1028; 2007(2)KarLJ45; 2007(2)KCCR1489; 2007(3)AIRKarR189(DB)

1. Though the matter is posted for orders, since the contesting respondents 1 and 2-Government, are served and as the matter can be disposed of on a short question, with the consent of counsel on both sides, matter is taken for final disposal.2. The appellant-writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge, is the President of Bolchikkalaki Gram Panchayath in Bijapur District. She has approached this Court challenging the notice dated 1.12.2006 for considering the 'no-confidence motion', proposed by other members. The learned Single Judge being unable to find any legal infirmity in the notice held that, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and dismissed the same. Hence, the present Appeal.3. Sri. G.S. Kannur, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, relying upon the provisions of Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994, (for short 'the Rules') contended that, as the written notice of intenti...

Smt. Shobharaj W/O. Late M.R. Phaniraj, Vs. Sri. Chandrappa S/O. Naras ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.02.2005 in Misc. No. 81/2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Raichur allowing LA. No. 7 filed under Section 151 CPC and consequently dismissing Misc. No. 81/2002 as not maintainable.2. Petitioners filed O.S. No. 48/1993 against the respondents for a decree of declaration of title and permanent injunction. This suit came to he dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.07.2001. Aggrieved by this order of dismissal the petitioners filed Misc. No. 81/2002 under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. In Misc. 81/2002 the respondents filed LA. No. 7 under Section 151 CPC for dismissal of miscellaneous petition as not maintainable. The trial Court after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order allowing LA. No. 7 and consequently dismissing the miscellaneous petition. Hence, this petition.3. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire wr...

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by Divisional Office-iii ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007ACJ2318

1. When the matter is posted for admission, since respondents are served and the question to be decided is in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the matter is taken for consideration.2. The deceased Hanumanthaiah was working as a loader in a lorry. On 24.2.2004, in the afternoon, while he was loading sand in the lorry from sand pit, suddenly the sand collapsed and the deceased was buried in the sand. On rescuing, he was found dead. Since he was working with respondent No.6, the legal representatives of the deceased Hanumanthaiah (respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein) have filed the claim petition for compensation before the Workmen's Commissioner. The owner of the Lorry and the Insurance Company, the appellant herein contested the claim on the ground that since the vehicle was stationary at the time of the incident, no liability arises against for the owner or the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. The Workmen's Commissioner declined to accept t...

Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Ltd. Rep. by Its Branch Manager ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)9VST89(Karn); ILR2007(1)Kar923; 2007(3)KCCRSN154; 2007-08(5)VATToday1

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 [for short 'the Act'] who is aggrieved that certain amount i.e., a sum of Rs. 55,000/- has been extracted from the petitioner purporting to be penalty payable by the petitioner for certain infractions noticed by the Checkpost Officer but which amount has not been properly accounted for in terms of the penalty or under the provisions of the Act and is therefore seeking for refund of the amount.2. The version of the petitioner is that the petitioner who has a unit in Daman, a Union Territory, was transporting certain goods from its factory to its place of business at Bangalore and the goods were in transit by way of stock transfer; that it had reached the destination and at the time of unloading the goods it was inspected by the Commercial Tax Officer [Mobile Squad], respondent No. 2 herein.3. It is the further version of the petitioner that the respondents virtu...

M. Munirajappa S/O Munishamappa Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Its ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ710; ILR2007(1)Kar794; 2007(4)KLJ710; 2007(2)KCCR1094; 2007(3)AIRKarR174

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner herein questioning the legality and validity of the impugned communication cum order dated 12th February 2001 bearing No. PAD.118.9267/PN III/STC BSF YEL/BSF 2001 issued by second respondent vide Annexure F, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to grant immediate ex-gratia grant of Rs.7.5 lakhs along with 18 per cent interest with effect from 13 July 1999, the date of death of the wife of the petitioner and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to obtain Rs.01 lakh from the J & K Government and allot the said money to the petitioner. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction to fifth respondent to give money collected by the school children during Kargil operation to the children of the petitioner.2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner was serving as 'Constable' in the Border Security Force of India and presently servin...