Karnataka Court November 2007 Judgments
Abdul Wajid and ors. Vs. A.S. Onkarappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR120; 2008(4)KarLJ573; 2008(1)KCCR116; 2008(2)AIRKarR25; 2008AIHC1615(Kar)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. All these civil revision petitions are admitted for examination.All these civil revision petitions under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court Act, 1964, (for short 'the Act') either by the landlords or the tenants, invariably the landlords figuring as plaintiffs in the Small Causes suits which were for ejectment of the person occupying the premises, recovery of which was sought for by the landlords, are revision petitions which arise for examination in the context of the tenants who have suffered eviction orders, contending that such ejectment suits were not maintainable in the light of the law as laid down by the division Bench of this Court in the case of Sarojamma v. K.M. Venkatesh ILR 2007 KAR 309.2. While disposing of the civil revision petition which had been placed before the division Bench and arising in the context of the very question as to the maintainability of a suit for ejectment under the provisions of the Act, particularly, having re...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Asian Paints (India) Limited Now Represented by Its Hr M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR121]; ILR2008KAR1819; 2008(1)KarLJ695; (2008)ILLJ943Kant; ILR2008(2)Kar1819; 2008(1)KLJ695; 2008(1)KCCR241; 2008(1)AIRKarR441; 2008-I-LLJ943; 2008LabIC(NOC)339(Kar)(DB)
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. As the dispute between the parties lies in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides, the appeal is heard for final disposal.2. Brief facts of the case necessary for consideration and disposal of this appeal are:(i) The appellant is a Company engaged in paints and varnishes Industry. The 2nd respondent was employed as sales representative by the appellant on 1.7.1985. He has resigned from service of the appellant with effect from 1.4.1996. Thereafter he was paid an amount of Rs. 2,128.50 as gratuity, as per the scheme of the appellant 2nd respondent being dissatisfied with the said payment, had filed an application under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') in Form N, before the Controlling Authority to determine the amount of gratuity payable to him. In the annexure to the said application, the appellant has stated that the post held by him was 'sales representative' and he had put ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Umamaheswari W/O Late C. Srinivasalu Vs. Vijaya Bank a Body Constit ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR967]; ILR2008KAR142; 2008(1)KarLJ511
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, assailing the correctness of the impugned communication dated 10th September 2001 bearing No. PER:HRD:RCT:C:7872-2001 vide Annexure-G and the order dated 20th April 2006 bearing No PER:HRD:RCT:1428:2005 vide Annexure-L both issued by respondent, has presented this writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and grant her appointment as Clerk or Typist or any equivalent post strictly in accordance with the Scheme notified by the Bank by Circular No. 31/1999 dated 11.2.1999 vide Annexure-D and grant all consequential benefits.2. The case of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner's husband Sri. C. Srinivasulu was working as Sweeper in the respondent-Bank and he died in harness while in employment on 19.3.2001. On account of the death of her husband Sri. C. Srinivasulu, petitioner has filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds as per t...
Tag this Judgment!Asgar Jan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-2007
Reported in: [2008]298ITR60(KAR); [2008]298ITR60(Karn)
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This reference is sent by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to give our opinion on questions of law framed in paragraph 7 of its order.2. At the time of arguments, learned Counsel appearing for the parties submits that on the facts of this case, this Court is required to answer only the following questions of law:(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that M/s. Embassy Builders had not rendered any service at all as consultants and the payment to them is not genuine and does not qualify for deduction under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the light of the documentary evidence?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in finding that the payment to the Prestige group, who are in real estate building, is not genuine in terms of the supplementary agreement?3. For the assessment year 1991-92 the assessee filed a return of income on December 31, 1991, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Zakaulla S/O Late HussaIn Saheb, Prop. Bharath Medicals and S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)KarLJ583; 2008(2)AIRKarR124; AIR2008NOC1063
ORDERD.V. Sylendra Kumar, J.1. These two revision petitions are by the tenant nd the landlord of a commercial premises bearing No 5/13, 16th Cross, Lakkasandra, Bangalore-30, measuring east-west 12 feet and north-south 12 feet, which premises was the subject matter of HRC No 424 of 2002, on the file of Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore,2. The eviction petition by the landlord titled as one under Section 27(2)(a) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 [for short, the Act[, having failed in terms of the order dated 13-4-2007, though technically under the impugned order it was sought that the eviction petition under Section 27(2)(a) is allowed, the eviction petitioner not having achieved his objective of getting the premises, has while preferred HRRP No 193 of 2007 seeking for eviction of the tenant from the premises based on the Section 27(2)(o) ground, the trial court having allowed the petition under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act also, though it was not a head under which th...
Tag this Judgment!B. Puttaswamy Vs. the Regional Transport Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ586
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This is a frivolous writ petition by the owner of a registered stage carriage vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-63/2340, who is before this Court seeking for quashing of a demand notice for payment of tax for the period from 1-1-2005 to 30-9-2006 and penalty for delayed payment of motor vehicle taxes for the period upto 31-12-2004.2. Though several grounds are urged in support of the writ petition, what is prayed for at the time of hearing of this petition, after notice to the respondents and as submitted by Sri Sundararaja Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that if the petitioner is permitted to pay the arrears of tax in terms of the impugned demand dated 15-9-2006 and further arrears upto the quarter ending 31-12-2007 the petitioner is inclined to pay current tax from 1-1-2008 onwards and this Court may permit instalments to pay the entire arrears and direct the release of the vehicle which was seized on 15-9-2006 by the respondents-authori...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Amarashetty Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. (No. 1)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-2007
Reported in: [2009]309ITR89(KAR); [2009]309ITR89(Karn); [2009]180TAXMAN172(Kar)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, who is an assessee under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, is aggrieved by an order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax rejecting the request of the petitioner for extending the relief under Section 220(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is a provision which enables an assessee to seek for waiver of interest payable on the delayed payment of tax demanded pursuant to a notice issued under Section 156 of the Act and for defaulting in payment of tax beyond the permitted period.2. It appears, the assessee, for the assessment years 1992-93, 1994-95 and 1995-96 had not filed his returns in time and the income-tax authorities had occasion to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act calling upon the assessee to file returns for those years and after great persuasion and prodding, the assessee appears to have filed returns. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer had assessed the assessee and the assessee had appealed against the assessme...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ganesh S/O M. Sella Perumal Vs. State of Karnataka - Spp
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR177; 2008(2)KarLJ525
H.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. This appeal is by the accused challenging the order passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Mangalore in SC 53/2005 convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence under Section 304 Part II, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.2. The accused had been charge sheeted for the offence under Section 302, IPC alleging that on 26.5.2004 around 7.30 p.m. at Kavu CRC Colony at Madnoor Village in Puttur Taluk the deceased Namashivaya asked the accused not to take water from the tap. The accused with an intention to kill the deceased having removed the pen knife, stabbed Namashivaya on the left side of his chest and also on the left arm and caused bleeding injuries due to which Namashivaya succumbed to the injuries on his way to Puttur Government Hospital. Since the accused pleaded not guilty on framing of the charge, the trial was held. During trial the prosecution examined in all twelve witnesses and got marked about seventeen documents and five material obje...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Ramachandrasa and anr. Vs. Prakash Chand and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ454; 2008(1)KCCR214; 2008(1)AIRKarR535; 2008(2)ICC569; 2008AIHC(NOC)459(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115 is directed against the order dated 23-6-2007 passed by the Court of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Miscellaneous No. 320 of 2007, on the file of that Court, a petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the respondents and as such petition is allowed under the impugned order and the Original Suit Nos. 333 and 334 of 2005 were transferred from the Court of CCH XIII to the City Civil Court-XXVII, transfer is on the premise that Original Suit No. 2683 of 2005 instituted by the defendants in O.S. Nos. 333 and 334 of 2005 were pending before the transferred Court and that the defendants in O.S. No. 2683 of 2005 were the plaintiffs in the two suits directed to be transferred.2. Such an order of transfer is questioned by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 2683 of 2005 contending inter alia that the transfer order is not warranted; that the order amounts to an improper exercise o...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mariam George Vs. Smt. S. Jeswina W/O Sri Sathya Murty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR672; 2008(1)KarLJ383; 2008(2)KCCRSN121; 2008(1)AIRKarR381; AIR2008NOC698; 2008(4)CivilLJ554; 2008(2)ICC551; 2008AIHC1369(Kar)
A.S. Bopanna, J.1. The parties would be referred to in the same rank assigned to them before the Court below.The unsuccessful plaintiff in OS No. 1350/1996 is before this Court in this appeal. The plaintiff was before the Court below in a suit seeking for a judgment and decree against the defendant for Rs. 92,500/- with current interest at 18% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realisation and for costs. The case of plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that the plaintiff knows the defendant for the last about 20 years. Both of them are working in M/s Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore. According to the plaintiff, during March 1993, the defendant expressed certain serious domestic financial problems and requested the plaintiff to help her by lending Rs. 60,000/- as temporary loan. The plaintiff, though did not have sufficient funds with her, borrowed some amount from her friends and close relatives and made over Rs. 60,000/- to the defendant on 21.3.1993. The defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »