Karnataka Court April 2007 Judgments
S. Srinidhi Vs. State by K.G. Nagar Police Station and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ627
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Sri Srinidhi, is before us seeking a direction to the respondent to produce Sri K.S. Venkatesh and Smt. Rukmini, who are taken into custody by the police in the case on hand. According to petition averments, Sri K.S. Venkatesh filed P.C.R. No. 180 of 2007 against Vishweshwara Teertha Swamiji for an offence punishable under Sections 307, 326. 340 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Matter was referred for investigation. Thereafter according to him Sri K.S. Venkatesh and his sister Smt. Rukmini were taken away by KG. Nagar Police Station. It is further stated that they are being tortured by the Police. With these allegations, this petition was filed. This Court issued notice on 10-1-2007 and thereafter this Court directed the police to make all efforts and to produce Sri K.S. Venkatesh and Smt. Rukmini before the Court. On 23-1-2007, a counter-affidavit was filed before this Court. The Police authorities also produced Sri K.S. Venkatesh and Sm...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. N.M. Ramachandraiah S/O Magirowda and Smt. M.A. Vinoda W/O Sri N. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Kant164; 2008(2)KarLJ257; 2007(5)AIRKarR310; ILR2007(4)Kar4020; 2007(3)KCCR2049
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioners have sought in this writ petition quashing of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Mysore District, directing registration of the sale deed and also for cancelling the sale deed dated 05.10.2000, which was registered in pursuance of the directions issued by the second respondent. The facts in brief are as under:2. The petitioner N.M. Ramachandraiah is the absolute owner of the premises called Chamundeshwari Krupa, Budda Marg, Siddartha Nagar, Mysore. After purchase of the vacant site, he put up construction consisting of ground and first floor. He is in occupation of the ground floor and has let out the first floor to a tenant. He had borrowed money from the Corporation Bank for construction of the house and as security he has created equitable mortgage in favour of the bank by depositing the title deeds. It is his specific case that the 4th respondent is unknown to him and there was no necessity for him to sell the property to the 4th respond...
Tag this Judgment!international Society for Krishna Consciousness (iskcon) a Registered ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ440; 2007(4)AIRKarR144
ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed against the order dated 03.01.2005 in O.S. No. 7934/2001 passed by the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, partly allowing I.A. No. 20 filed under Order 8 Rule 6-C CPC and partly rejecting the same.2. The petitioners in W.P. No. 13748/05 are plaintiffs and the petitioners in W.P. No. 12106/05 are the defendants. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.3. Plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 7934/2001 against the Defendants for declaration and permanent injunction. The Defendants filed written statement denying the claim of plaintiff and also made a counter claim. The counter claim of defendant in O.S. No. 7934/2001 reads as under:1. For Permanent injunction restraining the Plaintiff, its office bearers, agents, workmen and any person claiming under or through it from interfering with the first defendant's possession, management and control of:(i) its Bangalore Branch and Sri Radhakris...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Reptd. by Its Regi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ16; 2007(5)KarLJ65; 2007(4)AIRKarR556
V. Jagannathan, J.1. All these appeals arise out of one and the same order passed by the W.C. Commissioner, Chithradurga, allowing the claim petitions filed by the respective claimants and fastening liability on the appellant-insurance company. The common question that is involved is as to whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in putting the liability on the appellant. Therefore, all these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts in brief giving rise to all those appeals are to the affect that on 14.6.2004, the respective claimants travelled in the Tractor-Trailer bearing No. KA-14-2117/2118 and according to the claimants, they were going in the said vehicle to a place called T-Nulenur village in order to load the vehicle with arecasaplings and as such, in a capacity of loaders, these claimants travelled in the said vehicle in question and while they were returning in the tractor-trailer, of one Siddappa, the Tractor-cum Trailer turned tu...
Tag this Judgment!Mahila Samakhya Karnataka, Rep. by Its State Programme Director, Vs. S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR2559; 2007(5)KarLJ363; 2007(4)KCCRSN232
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the award dated 7th April 2006 in K.I.D.Nos. 247, 257, 258 and 259/2004 on the file of the Labour Court, Gulbarga,2. Case of the petitioners is that, in 1986, the Government of India propounded the national policy for education and introduced a project named as 'Mahila Samakhya' to translate the goals of national policy on education and programme of action pursuant thereto for educating women in rural areas particularly women from socially and economically marginalized groups to provide educational opportunities for women with a view to provide women and adolescent girls with a necessary support, structure and informal learning of (SIC) environment to create an opportunity for education and environmental awareness. In this connection, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development established a programme called 'Manila Samakhya' in the year 1989 with an assistance from Dutch Government. The object of the...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Babajan Son of Moulasab Hulkop Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. by ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: ILR2007(3)KAR3683; 2007(6)KarLJ263; 2007(4)AIRKarR495
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. The award dated 24.8.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Hubli in Reference No. 121/1996 is called in question by the petitioner.2. Petitioner claims that, he was appointed by the respondent management on 13.12.1982 on daily wage basis and was working to the satisfaction of the management till he was illegally terminated on 25.9.1986. It is alleged that the other workmen who were appointed with the petitioner have been retained in the service. It is also alleged that he had completed 240 days of continuous service and his termination is illegal and in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and it amounts to retrenchment, within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act.3. Respondents filed counter inter alia denying that the petitioner had worked for 240 days and that, there is no record to show that he had worked as a daily wager. Further stated that the reference itself is stale and not maintainable.Th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Master Sunil R. Kalro
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Kar)314; [2007]292ITR86(KAR); [2007]292ITR86(Karn)
ORDER1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has chosen to refer the following two questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that there is no concealment and penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable?2. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) is not at all leviable on a representative assesses?2. The assessee claimed that he had received gift from two persons, namely, Mr. Mohan and Mr. Arjundas, residents of Singapore. The amount so received was Rs. 2,36,670/- and was treated as income Under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. The addition was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Tribunal and this Court rejected the claim of the assessee.3. The assessing officer thereafter initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income. There was no confirmation of the donors. The recipient was a minor and therefore, he could have received front someone who ...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Kyatanagoudar, Shri Basaveshwara Krupa Shivagiri and ors. Vs. Mah ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-2007
Reported in: [2007]139CompCas225(Kar); (2007)5CompLJ144(Karn); 2008(1)KarLJ243; [2008]81SCL221(Kar)
1. The appellants are creditors of the respondent, namely, Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, in the year 1943. The said company was, inter alia, engaged in deposit mobilization, hire-purchase, leasing, bill discounting and money changing. It was classified as a hire-purchase and equipment leasing company by the Reserve Bank of India.For the year ending 31, March 2002 the accumulated losses of the respondent company stood at Rs. 105.85 Crore. The appellants, who have invested a sum of Rs 1.05 crore in several schemes floated by the respondent, had filed a petition for winding up of the respondent on the ground that it had become commercially insolvent as it was unable to pay monies due to them, in Company Petition 206 /2002.The respondent on the other hand filed a petition for sanction of a Scheme under Sections 391, 392, 393 read with Section 394-A of the Companies Act, 1956, in Company Petition 37/2003. The company court...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh S. Rao and ors. Vs. Land Tribunal Rep. by Its Chairman,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR2409; 2007(5)KarLJ303; 2007(4)KCCRSN223; 2007(5)AIRKarR362
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.2.2007 passed by the Land Tribunal in No. Benakanahalli: SR:84+82+89, conferring occupancy rights in favour of 3rd respondent on an application fifed in Form No. 7.2. The Land Tribunal was considering the application in the second round pursuant to a remand order dated 2.9.1999 passed in W.P. No. 20055/1993 connected with W.P. No. 29268/1992 by this Court.3. On an earlier occasion the Land Tribunal had rejected the application filed by the person claiming as a tenant and it is that order dated 6.2.1991 which had been set aside by this Court and the matter had been remanded and it was on such remand the Tribunal had taken up the matter for further enquiry.4. While many of the basic facts were not in dispute particularly, the tenant being in possession and cultivation of the land in question on the appointed day, it was also on record before the Tribunal that the tenant was in fact in possession of t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Eskayef Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Kar)31; [2008]296ITR110(KAR); [2008]296ITR110(Karn)
R. Gururajan and Anand Byrareddy, JJ.1. This reference is at the instance of Commissioner of Income-tax. 2. Assessment under Section 16(2) of the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1954 was made on the basis of return of chargeable profits furnished by the assessee based on the United Kingdom accounts. In the assessment so made, the amount of capital was taken as declared by the assessee. The Commissioner subsequently found that the capital so declared and accepted by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue in so far as the inclusion in the 'capital' of (i) reserve representing unappropriated profits in the United Kingdom account and (ii) reserve equivalent to the capital expenditure on scientific research which expenditure was allowed while computing the income under the Income-tax Act was concerned. The Commissioner, by using his powers Under Section 16(2) of the Sur-tax Act, accordingly set aside the assessment and restored it to the Assessing O...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »