Karnataka Court January 2008 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.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Now Rep. by Oriental Insurance Company ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Kant115; ILR2008KAR1561; 2008(4)KarLJ121; 2008(1)KCCRSN76; 2008(3)AIRKarR46; AIR2008Kar115; 2008(4)CivilLJ863; 2008AIHC2292(Kar)
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The insurer of the offending vehicle, aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 30th July, 2005 in MVC 151/2004 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Small Causes and Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore, for short MACT, has preferred this appeal,2. One Puttamari succumbed to injuries in. a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 9.6.2003, resulting in his sister-in-law and nephew by name Shivamma and Prabhakar, respectively lodging a claim for Rs. 8,06,000/- as compensation. The insurer opposed the claim as well as the relationship of the claimants with the deceased. The MACT, on adjudication of the claims, held that the claimants were legal, representatives of the deceased entitled to compensation, reckoned Rs. 100/- per day as the income of the deceased, being in the age group of 55 to 60 years, applied multiplier '8' deducted 12 of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased a bachelor, and awarded Rs. 1,44,000/- for loss of dependency, to wh...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., City Branch Rep. by their Administrat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: 2008ACJ2219; ILR2008KAR1746; 2008(6)KarLJ383; ILR2008(2)Kar1746; 2008(6)KLJ383; 2008(1)KCCR421; 2008(2)AIRKarR556; AIR2008NOC1433; 2008ACJ2219; 2008AIHC2089(Kar)
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The insurer of the offending vehicle aggrieved by the common Judgment and award dated 3.3.32005 in MVC Nos. 74, 75 and 115/97 of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and MACT, Mandya, for short 'MACT', has preferred this appeal.2. The short point for decision making is, whether the MACT in the facts and circumstances of the case having recorded a finding that the claimants were passengers in the goods carriage and not loaders as contended, was justified in fastening liability on the appellant to pay the compensation and to recover the same from the owner by filing Execution Petition?3. The answer to the above question need not detain the Court for long. The Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani : AIR2003SC607 followed by the Judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedawathi and Anr. : AIR2007SC1334 held that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not enjoin statutory liability on the owner of the motor vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger...
B. Yellappa Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Represented by Its Junio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR1228; (2008)IILLJ612Kant; 2008(5)KLJ340; 2008(2)KCCRSN89; 2008(3)AIRKarR37; 2008LabIC(NOC)686(Kar)
1. Appellant is the workman under the respondent-employer/management The workman has filed an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act'), claiming certain amount. The workman had also filed an application under Section 36 of the Act, inter alia, objecting the management from engaging the services of an advocate In the proceedings. The application was contested by the management by filing its statement of objections. The Labour Court on consideration, by its order dated 1.7.2005, has allowed the application filed by the workman and has rejected the request of the management for engaging the services of in advocate to represent it, in the proceedings. The officers of the Industrial and Commercial Employers' Association (for short 'ICEA') had filed an application. inter alia, seeking permission to represent the management The Labour Court, by an order 4.8.2005, has rejected the said application on the ground that the respondent is not represent...
The Commissioner of Income Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income T ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Kar)74; ILR2008KAR1255; 2008(1)KCCRSN79(DB)
1. This appeal is by the revenue challenging the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'A' in ITA No. 695/Bang/2000 for the assessment year 1996-97 wherein the Tribunal has reversed the findings of the Assessing Officer and also the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) raising the following substantial question of law.i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of Rs. 8,06,147/- incurred by the assessee for replacing the old mono-sound system with a new stereo system viz., Dolby system should be treated as a revenue expenditure and not as a capital expenditure as held by the assessing Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner2. The assessee during the relevant assessment year a placed the old mono sound system with new Dolby stereo system and treated it as a revenue expenditure. The assessing Officer rejecting the contention of the assessee that it cannot be treated as a revenue expenditure, held it as a capital ...
Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Standard Chartered Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: 2008[10]STR6; (2009)19VST453(Karn)
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the revenue challenging concurrent findings of the Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals, Bangalore, and the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Bombay, in case No. A/257-258/212B/2007/CSTB/CI dated 29-03-2007 [2007 (7) S.T.R. 449 (Tri.)] raising following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether refund could be granted without verification of documentary evidences including the documents referred to Section 12A of the Central Excise Act?(ii) Whether refund would be admissible without examining the applicability of principles of unjust enrichment as laid down under the provisions of Section 11B(2) to Central Excise Act, 1944?2. We have heard Shri Shashikantha, learned Counsel for the appellant.3. The respondent is a banking institution. The respondent filed an application for refund of excess Service tax paid on the ground that the Service tax paid by the assessee has not been recovered from i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D. Meenakshi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Kar)480; [2009]184TAXMAN88(Kar)
K.L. Manjunath, J. 1. This appeal is by the revenue challenging the concurrent findings of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals)-II, Bangalore which has been confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in WTA 44/Bang./2002 raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the assessee's share in the Body of Individuals in which he was a member cannot be brought to Wealth Tax as his share was not determinate on the valuation date?2. Whether the interest held by the assessee in a body of individuals can be brought to wealth tax in accordance with Rules 15 and 16 to 20 of III Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act read with Section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act especially when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meera and Company v. CIT : 224 ITR 635 has held that Association of Persons' and 'Body of Individuals' is not something distinct and separate, but, is a composite unit liable to tax?3. Whether the appellate...
The Managing Director, Krishna Bhagya Jalanigam Ltd. Rep. by Its Compa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR1983; (2008)IIILLJ433Kant; 2008(2)KCCRSN91; 2008(2)AIRKarR573; 2008LabIC2062(Kar)
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. An award dated 12th September 2006 passed in K.I.D. No. 395/1999 on the file of the Labour Court, Gulbarga, is called in question.2. The respondent-workman raised a dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, inter-alia alleging that, he was appointed on daily wages, as a Work Inspector on 01.01.1994 and he worked till 02.05.1985 and again he was reinstated from 27.05.1996 and was terminated from his services on 26.02.1999 and alleged that his termination is illegal and is entitled for all the benefits under Section 25F of the I.D. Act.3. The said claim petition was contested by the respondent inter-alia denying the allegations made in the claim petition and stated that the respondent has not worked for 240 days.4. Before the Labour Court, the workman got himself examined as WW-1 and also got marked Ex. W-l and W-2. On behalf of the petitioner, MW-1 was examined. The Labour Court on appreciation of the evidence found that, the respondent has ...
Sri SharfuddIn (Since Dead by L.Rs. Faimunnisa Begum W/O Late Sharfudd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR855]; ILR2008KAR1629; 2008(4)KarLJ117; 2008(2)KCCR858; 2008(3)AIRKarR120; 2008LabIC(NOC)798(Kar)(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.2. The appellants were the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3116 of 2003 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge as per the order dated 22.03.2006 impugned in this writ appeal.3. The appellants are the legal representatives of Sri Sharfuddin who died on 16.12.2005. Sri Sharfuddin was an employee of the Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation who retired on superannuation on 31.07.2002. As per Annexure-F order dated 30.07.2002, the respondent-Corporation permitted the appellant to retire from service on 31.07.2002 subject to the condition that the loss of Rs. 22,34,427/- caused during transport and Rs. 6,64,610/- caused in the godown will be audited and losses if any, occurred during the period of appellant's service will be deducted out of his terminal benefits and that if any other financial liability was found, the same will be deducted out of his terminal be...
Smt. Razia Begaum Vs. Abdul Khadar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR1863; 2008(2)KCCR97; 2008(3)AIRKarR190; AIR2008NOC2132; 2008(4)CivilLJ535; 2008AIHC2439(Kar)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. These two appeals arise from the Judgment dated 28.1.2002 rendered in R.A. No. 12 of 1999 on the file of the court of the I Additional District Judge, Dharwad at Hubli.2. The appeal itself was by the Defendant No. 3 in the suit in No. 224 of 1996 on the file of the court of the Additional Civil Judge [Sr. Dn.,] Hubli at Hubli which was a suit for a share in the property of one Haji Khan Gadagkar filed by his wife and first son as plaintiff 1 and 2 respectively, impleading the second son as Defendant No. his wife as Defendant No. 2 and widow of predeceased son of 1 plaintiff and predeceased brother of 2nd plaintiff as Defendant No. 23. The relationship amongst the parties to the suit is as under.Haji Khan Gadagkar (died) + wife Smt. Hajjima (1st Plaintiff)------------------------------------------| | || | |Abdul Sattar Mohamed Gouse Abdul KhadarGadagkar Gadagkar Gadagkar1st son (died 2nd son 3rd sonbefore filing of 1st Defendant 2nd plaintiffsuit but after | t...
R. Gopalakrishna S/O Late Sri N.S. Ramachandraiah Vs. the Karnataka St ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Kant77; ILR2008KAR2034; ILR2008(2)Kar2034; 2008(5)KLJ327; 2008(1)KCCR568; 2008(2)AIRKarR547; AIR2008Kar77; 2008AIHC2081(Kar)(DB)
R. Gopalakrishna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 21-04-2002 passed by the learned XVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore dismissing the suit In O.S. No. 2567/2000.2. The facts necessary for consideration of the appeal are as follows:The plaintiff/appellant has filed a suit in O.S. No. 2567/2000 praying for following reliefs:(a) Declaring that the liability of the plaintiff as issued early by mortgage of the suit schedule property to as extinguished by operation of law;(b) Consequential mandatory in function directing the defendants to return the documents deposited as per the list dated 09-09-1995;(c) Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding against the suit schedule property as a property mortgaged to discharge the debt due from M/s Sriram Borewells, Tarikere.(d) to award costs;(e) grant such other reliefs as deemed just and necessary In the facts and circumstances of the case.3. As p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »