Karnataka Court April 2007 Judgments
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sree Valliappa Textiles
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Kar)309; [2007]294ITR322(KAR); [2007]294ITR322(Karn)
1. Revenue is before us aggrieved by the order dtd 5-3-2001 of the tribunal in the case on hand in CP No. 1282/1999. The assessing officer levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income on the cost of purchase of machinery amounting to Rs. 14,65,669.80. The penalty levied is Rs. 8,00,000/- for concealment. Aggrieved by the same. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax appeal. Commissioner agreed with the levy of penalty and confirmed the same. Assessee filed an appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal cancelled the penalty levied by the assessing officer on the ground of no concealment in terms of the Act. Revenue aggrieved by the same filed a Miscellaneous Petition to rectify the errors. The tribunal rejected the same. Thereafter assessee sought for a reference to this Court. After hearing, the tribunal has no chosen to refer the following questions of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly having re...
Tag this Judgment!Jc840380 Ex Sub P.N. Ravindra Vs. Cda (Pensions) and Oic Dsc Records
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)KCCRSN247
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner in this petition has sought for setting aside the court speaking order dated 29th October 2005 of DSC records vide Annexure B. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents to follow the circular dated 23rd October 2003 and also Vth Pay Commission pension tables and pay the individual a monthly pension of Rs. 1468+3015 = Rs. 4483/- with effect from 1st April 2001 and also the arrears with 6% simple interest.2. It is undisputed that, petitioner herein had earlier filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 31955/2003 before this Court seeking a direction to respondents to pay the petitioner's dues from the date of his retirement i.e. 1st April 2001 and revised PPO to the individual, as the individual is not getting his due pension of Rs. 4483/- for the month vide Annexure J and F1 therein and arrears with minimum interest as may be decided by this Court.3. The said writ petition had come up for consideration before this Court on 16th Ju...
Tag this Judgment!NitIn Majumdar S/O Shamsundar Majumdar Vs. State of Karnataka by Its P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR2969; 2007(4)KarLJ569; 2007(4)KCCRSN265; 2007(4)AIRKarR155; 2007CrLJNOC750; AIR2007NOC1613
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. These petitions are filed by the accused in Crl.Case Nos. 532/2006, 531/2006, 523/2006, 527/2006, pending on the file of JMFC Court, Dandeli, seeking quashing of the said proceedings.2. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (in short State Board), through its Regional Officer, Karwar, has lodged the complaints against the petitioners herein alleging violation of Sections 21 and 22 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Air Act'), which is punishable under Section 37 of the 'Air Act'. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners have illegally established and are operating the Iron Ore Stack Yard, at various places in Uttara Kannada District, without the previous consent of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'State Board'); that the accused have not provided any pollution control measure in spite of repeated requests and instructions ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka by Gandasi Police Vs. Rangappa S/O Ningegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ599; ILR2007(3)Kar2878; 2007(3)KCCR1830; 2007(4)AIRKarR598; 2007(5)KLJ598
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the JMFC., Arasikere in C.C. NO. 1159/97 dated 4.5.2002 wherein the respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 408 IPC.2. The essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial court are as follows:It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of the complaint filed by PW.4 who was working as Manager, HDCC Bank, Gandasi Hand Post as per Ex.P3, PW.12 who was working as PSI registered Crime No. 78/97 and prepared FIR as per Ex.P3. It is averred in the complaint that the accused was working in the said Bank since 4 1/2 years as Assistant and he was entrusted with the duty of attending the work entrusted by the Manager, On 10.7.97 at about 10.30 am since the amount was required for payment to be made towards the salary of the teachers for the month of June, 1997 accused was handed over a cheque for...
Tag this Judgment!Kodandaramaswamy Deity Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ331; 2007(4)AIRKarR99
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by the parupattegar of Sri Kodandaramaswamy Deity, located at Kengal Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Vandaraguppe Village, Channapatna Taluk, questioning the legality of the order dated 28-4-2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District in No. LRF INM 21/2004-05 (copy at Annexure-Q to the writ petition), conferring occupancy rights in favour of sixth respondent in respect of house property bearing municipal No. 1183 and attached shop No. 1184, located within the municipal limits of Channapatna Town being owned by the petitioner-temple, on an application filed by the sixth respondent under the provisions of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act').2. It is, inter alia, contended by the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner has virtually ignored the evidence on record that the property was not an agricultural property; that the sixth respondent admittedly the tenant of the property owne...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ekambaram Reddy S/O K. Doraswamy Reddy Vs. Deputy Conservator of Fo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3197; 2007(5)KarLJ112; 2007(4)AIRKarR81
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 29.11.2006 in FOC No. 32/2006-07 whereby and whereunder the 1st respondent has imposed certain conditions for release of the vehicle bearing No. KA-53-711 (a tipper) in his favour.2. Petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle. It is the case of the petitioner that he is engaged in the business of transportation of waste mud and sand on contract basis. On the request of the customers, he transports the mud and sand from one place to another place. One Narayan Raju, a contractor hired the vehicle of the petitioner for transportation of mud and sand from the surroundings of I.T.C. Company to Palace ground, Bangalore. On 20.07.2006 at about 12.10 P.M. while the vehicle of the petitioner was transporting the mud and sand, certain officials of the Forest Department seized the vehicle alleging that the vehicle was involved in commission of certain offences. P...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesh S/O Shamanna Vs. State of Karnataka by Hebbal Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR2777; 2007(4)KarLJ507; 2007(4)AIRKarR86
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Mr. Fabian Redden, Crime No. 459/2006 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 363 of IPC against the petitioner and two other accused. The police after investigation have laid the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 397 and 367 of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is that while the complainant was driving his Scorpio Car from Yelahanka towards Bangalore at 8.30 p.m. on 6.12.2006, the petitioner and another followed his car on a motor cycle up to Hebbal Ring Road. In the said car, Kumari Kanmani Kavi was travelling with the complainant. Though the complainant avoided the accused and proceeded towards Hebbal, the accused began chasing the car of the complainant. However, to avoid the crowded traffic near Hebbal Fly-Over, the complainant took the car towards left side of Fly-Over i.e., towards the Ring Road. Ultimately the car driven by the complainant had to stop because ...
Tag this Judgment!Veerayya S/O Veerabhadrayya Saraganachari Vs. the Assistant Commission ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ206; 2007(3)KCCRSN205; 2007(4)AIRKarR101(DB)
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. This appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.2.2007 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant had filed Form No. 7 under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act) as amended by Act 1 of 1974 for grant of a land bearing Sy.No. 111/2 of Sulibhavi village, Hungund Taluk, on the ground that even though he was a tenant in occupation and possession of the land in question as on 1.3.1974, by inadvertence he has not filed application for grant of occupancy rights as required under Section 48-A of the Act and in view of the amended provision of Section 77-A of the Act, he is entitled for grant of the land.2. Initially, the Tribunal granted the land to the appellant which was challenged in appeal No. 683/02 by the landlords and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal reversed the finding of the Land Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Con...
Tag this Judgment!Sri M.K. Shekarappa S/O Karibasappa (Since Deceased by His Lrs. Smt. P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR2473; 2007(5)KarLJ93; 2007(4)KCCRSN227; 2007(4)AIRKarR330; AIR2007NOC1817
H.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this second appeal, appellants have challenged the order of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn), Shimoga in RA 88/1994 confirming the order of the Prl. Munsiff, Shimoga in OS 315/1988.2. The appellants are plaintiffs who filed a suit for redemption of mortgage and for possession of the suit schedule property and for future mesne profits. The trial court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as time barred against which, appeal was preferred by the appellants before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn), Shimoga. The appellate court while confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal.3. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was raised for consideration on 26.11.2001.4. Whether the appellant plaintiff filed the suit within the time as prescribed under Article 16(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 when admittedly the mortgaged property has been sold by the mortgagee before it could be redeemed and in t...
Tag this Judgment!Compact Griha Nirman Vs. Kusum Alloys Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3794; 2007(6)KarLJ564; ILR2007(4)Kar4192; 2007(5)AIRKarR416; AIR2007NOC2349
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act) for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.2. The subject matter of this proceedings is an industrial premises bearing Plot No. 9 out of Sy. No. 77, measuring 32012 sq. mtrs. Or 344577 sq. ft., situated at Doddannekkundi 1st Phase Industrial area, K.R. Puram, Bangalore East Taluk. The said land was originally allotted to M/s. Tanfort Tyres Limited by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board. The first respondent has purchased the entire assets and liabilities of M/s. Tanfort Tyres Limited including the lease hold right over the said land. Respondent No. 1 has applied to the KIADB for grant of the said land in its name. By an agreement dated 10-8-1998 the KIADB has agreed to transfer the said and in favour of the first respondent subject to certain terms and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »