Karnataka Court November 2007 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.
Smt. Devamma W/O Nanjappa Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)KarLJ537
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.Petitioners are all persons whose lands had come to be acquired by the state for construction of a reservoir known as Tonnur tank, as part of the Hemavathi Left Bank Canal project, as a sequel to the conclusion of Hemavathi dam across the river Hemavathi.2. In respect of such lands acquired from the petitioners, while the land acquisition officer had made awards, determining the quantum of compensation, the land owners being dissatisfied with the compensation as awarded by the land acquisition officer, had sought for reference to the civil court in terms of Section 18 of the Act and had met with partial success. The petitioners feeling aggrieved that they have not been adequately compensated on their lands acquired, have evinced their interest to prosecute the matter by filing appeals before this Court under Section 54 of the Act, but are pleading their inability to pay commensurate court fee on the memorandum of such appeals on the premise that they cannot...
The Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. the Karnataka Power Transmission Cor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ656; 2008(1)KCCRSN53; 2008(2)AIRKarR1
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a generator of electric energy, which according to the writ petitioner, had been agreed to be supplied to the first respondent Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd [KPTCL] under an agreement dated 8-10-1999.2. While the agreement did work well between the petitioner and the Karnataka Electricity Board [KEB], with which the agreement had been entered into and even with its successor - KPTCL -, it appears, certain legislation particularly the enactment of the Karnataka Electricity Reform Act, 1999 [for short, the Act] which was deemed to have been come into effect from 1-6-1999, intervened and had certain adverse effect on the petitioner.3. It is in the wake of the agreement being not implemented or acted upon by the KPTCL and subsequent development being that KPTCL itself having been bifurcated into a transmission company retaining its original name and a distributor company, which has been added as fourth respondent, not continui...
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. S.K. Srigiri and Bros.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-2007
Reported in: [2008]298ITR13(KAR); [2008]298ITR13(Karn)
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in these three appeals are:When the assessee has received income from other sources, the remuneration claimed by the partners can be allowed as per Section 40(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act?2. The assessee is a firm doing business in commercial agencies. Before completion of assessment, when a survey was conducted, it was noticed that certain entries were not reflected in the returns of income and, thereafter, the revised returns were filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer accepting the revised returns and passed the orders of assessments. The Commissioner of Income-tax exercising powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued a notice to the assessee. In response to the same, the assessee contended that the income declared in the revised returns was from business and not from other sources and that the revision proceedings initiated by the Commissioner has to be dismissed. The Commissioner rejecti...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Now Reptd. by Its Regional Manager, Nation ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1116; ILR2008KAR996; 2008(6)KarLJ160; ILR2008(1)Kar996; 2008(6)KLJ160; 2008(1)KCCRSN77; 2008(3)AIRKarR12; AIR2008NOC1662; 2008ACJ1116; 2008AIHC2287(Kar)(DB)
1. This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the judgment and award passed by ' the XVI Addl. Judge & Member, M.A.C.T. Bangalore City, in M.V.C. 982/06 dated 29.11.2006, being aggrieved by the passing of the award under the Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) and awarding compensation of Rs. 4,68,300/- with simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.2. We have hoard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant-insurance company submitted that the claim petition is filed by the mother of one Nagaraj who died due to injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 14.12.2005 while he was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing No. KA-05-A-4240 due to rash and negligent driving of a car bearing No. KA-02-And-4605. The petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. The learned Counsel submitted that t...
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) Vs. Mysore Paper Mills ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-2007
Reported in: [2008]298ITR20(KAR); [2008]298ITR20(Karn)
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the Revenue raising the following substantial question of law:(1) Whether the Assessing Officer can impose additional tax when the loss is reduced after adjustment?2. The assessee filed its return showing the loss. Thereafter, an intimation was issued under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on July 16, 1991, showing certain adjustment thereby reducing the loss declared by the assessee and called upon the assessee to pay an additional tax. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which appeal by corrigendum dated November 28, 1991, held that the assessee was not liable to pay the additional tax. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. Against which an appeal was filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal. The same has been dismissed by holding additional tax/penalty was not to be levied under Section 143(1A) of the Act.3. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the present appe...
Mrs. Anuradha Shenoy Vs. N. Nanjappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR390; 2008(3)KarLJ541; 2008(1)KCCR232; 2008(2)AIRKarR109; 2008(3)CivilLJ925; 2008(3)ICC667; 2008AIHC(NOC)465(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the defendant in OS No. 3797 of 2000, on the file of the XV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore city, being aggrieved by the order dated 28-1-2006, passed by the learned trial judge on IA-V.2. The respondent in the revision petition, who is the plaintiff, had instituted the suit against the sole defendant praying for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property on the ground that the tenancy has been determined and that the defendant was required to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property etc and for future mesne profit etc.3. The suit had been resisted by the defendant-petitioner and written statement had been filed. Issues had been- framed and the parties had gone to trial on the issues framed. An application came to be filed by the defendant on 14-10-2004 invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC praying for r...
Smt. Ragini Narayan W/O Late B.S. Narayan Vs. Smt. Minnie Narayan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-2007
Reported in: ILR2008(2)KAR1955; 2008(1)KCCR194; 2008(2)AIRKarR208; 2008AIHC1666(Kar).
V. Jagannathan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 5110/03 by the trial court by which the learned judge had decreed the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant and hence, the defendant is before this court in this appeal2. The case of the parties briefly stated is that the respondent-plaintiff was married to one B.S. Narayan and by virtue of an order passed in MJ Petition No. 854/1981 by the Bombay City Civil Court on 22.8.1982, the said marriage was dissolved and it is the case of the plaintiff that pursuant to the consent terms entered into between the plaintiff and her husband B.S. Narayan, so far as the property that was purchased in the year 1975 in the name of the plaintiff and her mother-in-law Lskshmamma is concerned, the plaintiff has been declared to kbe the absolute owner of the building that was put upon the land and neither the husband B.S. Narayan nor the plaintiff's mother-in-law have any right to any portion of ...
Commr. of Service Tax Vs. Shiva Analyticals (i) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-2007
Reported in: 2009[14]STR301; [2009]21STT328
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The correctness of the order dated 22-2-2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) is questioned in this appeal.2. The respondent claimed refund of Service tax amounting to Rs. 5,69,259/-. The same was granted by an order dated 9-1-2004 by the original authority. It was the subject matter of revision before the Commissioner, who, by his order dated 27-1-2005, held that the refund granted was erroneous and directed to re-credit the amount. The respondent questioned the same before the CESTAT. The Tribunal allowed the appeal vide order dated 1-3-2007. The correctness of the same is questioned in this appeal.3. We have carefully gone through the orders passed by the authorities. The service tax was paid by the respondent on wrong assumption that they are liable to pay it. Having realised their mistake, refund was claimed. Service Tax is payable by a service provider. The original authority found that respondent has not rendered any...
V.G.K. Design and Development Engg. (Pvt.) Ltd. Represented by Its Dir ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR5150; 2008(1)KarLJ305; 2008(1)KCCR322; AIR2008NOC739; 2008(1)AIRKarR564; 2008AIHC1417(Kar)(DB)
H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.4.2007 in O.S. No. 2927/2005 passed by the XII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent, damages and directing an enquiry into future mesne profits.2. Appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. In this judgment the parties are referred to their status before the Trial Court.3. Plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property. Defendant is the tenant in the schedule property under the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 13,500/-. Defendant committed default in payment of monthly rents. Plaintiff got issued a lawyer's notice or legal notice dated 19.3.2005 terminating the tenancy of defendant but the defendant failed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff. Having no other alternative the plaintiff had filed O.S.No. 2927/2005 again...
Shivayya Vs. Praveena and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Kant157; ILR2008KAR2747; 2008AIHC2793(Kar); 2008(4)AIRKarR142
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The appellant is the first defendant, second respondent was 2 defendant and first respondent was the plaintiff in the trial Court in O.S. No. 67/91. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the trial Court.2. The plaintiff, claiming to be the owner, has filed the suit against the defendants for possession and mesne profits in respect of the suit schedule property which is a car garage, alleging that defendants are trespassers. The defendants resisted the suit denying plaintiff's claim and have prayed for dismissal of the suit. After trial, the trial Court, by its judgment dated 30-6-2001 dismissed the suit. The plaintiff challenged the correctness of the same in R.A. No. 21/2001. The first appellate Court, by its judgment dated 29/8/2003 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and Decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant filed this...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »