Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR1135]; ILR2008KAR1371; 2008(4)KarLJ141; (2008)IIILLJ834Kant; 2008(2)KCCR669; 2008(3)AIRKarR131; 2008-III-LLJ-834; 2008LabIC(NOC)799(Kar)
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. Award dated 14th February 2007 in I.D. No. 39/2005 is called in question by the Corporation.2. Respondent was working as a driver. He was served with an article of charges, alleging that the respondent has obtained the employment by producing false Transfer Certificate. In this regard, an enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report, holding that, the charge is proved. The Disciplinary Authority considering the explanation of the workman and also the findings of the Enquiry Officer, found that the charge is proved and passed an order of dismissal.3. The respondent raised a dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Labour Court held that the enquiry is lair and proper. The workman got himself examined as WW-1 and also got marked Exs.W1 to W11 and Exs.M18 to M20 were got marked in the cross-examination of the workman. On consideration of the evidence and the material produced in the case, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2008)218CTR(Kar)590; ILR2008KAR1635; [2009]310ITR64(KAR); [2009]310ITR64(Karn); ILR2008(2)Kar1635; 2008(2)KCCRSN132; 2008(4)KCCRSN312; 2008(3)AIRKarR444(DB)
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in I.T.A. No. 122/PNJ/98 dated 04.06.2003, wherein the Tribunal has reversed the concurrent findings of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).2. The respondent-assesses is a partnership firm indulged in extraction of iron-ore from mines taken on lease and exports it through Minerals and Metal Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Madras. The assessee during relevant assessment years had filed the return of income. There was a search conducted on the premises of the assessee on 12th and 13th of December 1994. A statement under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act was recorded by the authorised officer at the instance of the partners of the assessee. They agreed to disclose voluntarily offering a tax on the income of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- subject to deductions under Section 80HHC for the assessment years 1992-93 t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008CriLJ2200; ILR2008KAR1352; 2008(5)KarLJ707; 2008(2)KCCR606; 2008(3)AIRKarR23; 2008(3)AICLR198
V. Jagannathan, J.1. This appeal has been heard after the matter wow remanded to this Court by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl A. No. 969/2007. This Court on the earlier occasion disposed of this appeal by its judgment dated 6.7.2006 and the matter was taken to the Apex Court by the second respondent (accused No. 4 before the trial Court), as this Court had convicted him for the offence punishable under Sections 333 and 452 of IPC and sentenced, him to one year R.I., and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Following the order passed lay the Apex Court remanding the matter, this Court heard the teamed Counsel for the parties on 25,1.2008 and posted the matter for further hearing today.2. The learned Government Pleader Shri Honnappa completed the arguments on behalf of the appellant/state, Learned Counsel for the respondents Submitted his reply.3. While remanding the matter to this Court, the Apex Court had observed thus:Learned Counsel for the respondent does not object to setting aside of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR1300; 2008(4)KarLJ53; ILR2008(1)Kar1300; 2008(4)KLJ53; 2008(1)KCCR525; 2008(2)AIRKarR555; AIR2008NOC1516; 2008(3)AICLR186; 2008(3)ICC581
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioner/complainant is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, challenging the order dated 18.01.2005 made in C.C. No. 30676/02 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bangalore, and the order dated 22.08.2005 made in Criminal Revision Petition No. 232/2005 on the file of Fast Track Court No. V at Bangalore city, in so far as not imposing double the cheque amount as fine for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Heard arguments.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused had approached the complainant and requested him to invest a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in LPG business assuring that the complainant would be accommodated as a partner along with the accused. Thereafter, from time to time the complainant paid in all a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-to the accused. The accused started business in gas agency on 17.10.2001. Thereafter, the complainant approached the accused and reque...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR1667; 2008(3)KCCR1390; 2008(4)AIRKarR176; AIR2008NOC2214; 2008(4)CivilLJ525; 2008(3)ICC723; 2008AIHC2906(Kar)
N. Kumar, J.1. This is the defendants second appeal against the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below that the 3rd defendant has failed to establish that he is the adopted son of Sri Bharamagouda and that he has not perfected his title by adverse possession to the suit schedule properties and therefore plaintiffs are entitled to partition and separate possession of their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule properties belong to one Bharamagouda. He had two wives by name Gourawwa and Gangawwa. He also had a kept mistress by name Gourawwa, the 4th defendant in the suit. Gourawwa is no more. Bharamagouda died on 23.3.1970. The plaintiffs 1 & 2 are the daughters of Gourawwa. The second wife Gangawwa had two daughters by name Gangimalavva and Neelavva, who are the 2nd defendant and 3rd plaintiff. The 3rd def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2008)217CTR(Kar)572; [2008]301ITR143(KAR); [2008]301ITR143(Karn)
Deepak Verma, J.1. Heard Sri K.S. Ravishankar, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 2 shall be referred to in short as 'the Act'), has been preferred by the asses-see against the order dated December 20, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'A', in the assessee's I.T.A. No. 402 (Bang)/2002 for the assessment year 1999-2000. In the memo of appeal even though several substantial questions of law have been formulated, but after having heard learned Counsel for the parties, learned Counsel for the appellant agreed that in fact questions Nos. 33 and 34 may be formulated for decision by this Court in this appeal. Questions Nos. 33 and 34 are reproduced hereunder:1. Whether, under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in upholding the levy of interest under Section 201(1A) for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2009]316ITR250(KAR); [2009]316ITR250(Karn)
Deepak Varma, J.1. Heard Sri Parthasarathi, learned Counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. By perusing the records and after having heard learned Counsel for the appellant we are of the considered opinion that this appeal has no substantial question of law:2. The short facts are as under:The appellant-assessee had executed a sale deed in favour of M/s. McDowell and Co. Ltd. on March 30,1999, for sale of three acres of land together with building constructed thereon for a total sum of Rs. 2,50,00,000. On the same date a separate agreement was entered into between the parties granting right of way to M/s. McDowell and Co. Ltd. to gain access to the land and building purchased by it. This agreement was valued at Rs. 42,00,000. According to the assessee, both the transactions were different.3. At the time of assessment under Section 144 of the Act, long-term capital gain was computed at Rs. 42,77,421. After the assessment was reopened on March 17, 2004, on the ground that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(1)KarLJ99; 2008(4)KCCR2280; 2008(6)AIRKarR213(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The petitioner is the applicant in Application No. 5202/2001 which was dismissed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal as per Annexure-A order dated 18.01.2007. Though She applicant filed Review Application No. 26/2007, it was rejected by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal as per Annexure-B order. Aggrieved by Annexure-A and B orders passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, the applicant has filed this writ petition challenging Annexure-A and B orders.2. The dispute is confined to the claim of the petitioner for the fifth stagnation increment which was due on 01.04.1997. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 31.05.1998. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to be granted the fifth stagnation increment which had fallen due on 01.04.1997 prior to his retirement from service. The claim of the petitioner was resisted by the respondents on the ground that as per the Government Order dated 18.03.1996. the grant of stag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR904; 2008(4)KarLJ145
V. Jagannathan, J.1. The State is in appeal questioning the judgment of the lower appellate court by which the learned judge of the lower appellate court had reversed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in C.C. No. 75/1989 for the offence punishable under Section 7(i) r/w 2(ia)(a) and (m) the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('the Act' for short).2. The facts in brief are to the effect that the Food Inspector of Primary Health Centre, Ajekar in Karkala Taluk, had visited the provision shop run by the respondent-accused on 30.8.1988 and found that the arrowroot item kept in the shop was adulterated one and not fit for human consumption and, therefore, he purchased 600 grams of arrowroot from the respondent and put it in plastic covers and thereafter a mahazar was conducted and the sample was subjected to test by the public analyst. The report given by the public analyst on 1.10.1988 was to the effect that the samples of arrowroot were found to be a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR1933; 2008(5)KarLJ583; 2008(2)KCCRSN90
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners and the2. The facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner No. 1 had entered into a Frank-work Agreement dated 3 4 1997 with the Government of Karnataka for the construction of a project known as Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Conidor Project (BMIC Project) inter alia comprising a 111 kilometre Four-Lane express way between Bangalore and Mysore and subsequent Tripartite Agreement dated 9.8.2002 including the second petitioner herein and had undertaken the construction of the Southern Peripheral Road, as a part of the BMIC Project, connecting National Highway-7 (Hosur Road) to 'National Highway-4 (Tumkur Road). The Peripheral Rood cuts across Bannerghatta Rood, Kanakapura Road, existing Mysore Road and Magadi Road. The total length of Peripheral Road is 41 kilometres out of which, the petitioners have so for constructed 39.5 kilometres. The petitioners are also constructing a 9.1 kilometre Link road connecting Bangalor...
Tag this Judgment!