Karnataka Court October 2008 Judgments

Vinir Engineering P. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]313ITR154(KAR); [2009]313ITR154(Karn); [2009]186TAXMAN72(Kar)

B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal bearing No. I.T.A. No. 698/Bang/2000 dated, February 27, 2004.2. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company and had filed its return of income for the assessment year 1997-98 on November 27, 1997, declaring nil income. In the said return of income, the assessee had claimed deduction towards interest liability to financial institution to an extent of Rs. 8,97,756 being the interest due relating to the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 on account of availing of a loan from the Karnataka State Financial Corporation. Annexure B is the statement of the total income furnished along with the return. The said return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act and the intimation was issued by the assessing authority disallowing the deduction by applying the proviso to Section 43B and a copy of the said intimation under Se...

Gurusiddappa Moolagi and ors. Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(3)KarLJ144;

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by persons who were Directors of the Hubli Taluk Agricultural Produce Marketing Society Limited, Hubli and who have suffered an order of disqualification under the provisions of Section 29-C(8) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act'), in terms of the orders at Annexures-A1 to A7 to the writ petition.2. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking for quashing of these orders notwithstanding an appellate remedy under Section 106 of the Act, for the reason that the petitioners and two others had earlier approached this Court in the context of the show-cause notice which had been issued for the very purpose seeking for quashing of the show-cause notice, but this Court while dismissing the writ petition, nevertheless, observed in terms of the order dated 24-7-2008 that the petitioners may file their objections to the show-cause notice within a further period of four weeks from that date and the respondents wer...

New India Assurance Company Vs. Jayashree Alias Laxmi and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ654:2009(4)AIRKarR193:AIR2009NOCKar2243(D.B

Manjula Chellur, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-Corporation and also the respondents -claimants.2. So far as occurrence of the accident and death of the deceased when the driver of bus in question was negotiating a turn and the deceased-Jagannath falling from the roof of the bus in which he was travelling, it is not seriously disputed. The insurer-appellant is not even questioning the age, occupation, earnings and quantum of compensation awarded on account of the death of the deceased.3. The only question the appellant's Counsel persistently persuaded us to accept is that the deceased-Jagannath was not a passenger in the strict sense of definition of 'passenger' defined under Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 who was covered under Section 147(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.4. It is not in dispute that deceased-Jagannath was travelling on 5-2-1997 from Dodderikatte to Channageri Taluk in the offending but when he fell down from the roof of the bus, sustained ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.K. Panthaki and Co.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Kar)471; [2009]316ITR452(KAR); [2009]316ITR452(Karn)

B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. In C. P. Nos. 365 and 366 of 1999 (IT) by the order dated April 8, 2001, this Court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'A' to refer questions Nos. 3 to 7 sought to be referred by the Commissioner of Income-tax renumbering the same as questions Nos. 1 to 5. Accordingly, the Assistant Registrar of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, has forwarded a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in R.A. Nos. 307 and 308/Bang/96 arising out of I.T.A. Nos. 904 and 906/Bang/1988 for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 for its opinion on the question of law as stated in the reference which is extracted as follows:1. Whether, on the facts and evidence brought on record, the conclusion of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the fact of commission payment by the assessee to the Mehtas was proved beyond reasonable, is tainted by flawed logic?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tr...

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bda and the Commissioner, Bda Vs ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KCCR694:2009(1)AIRKarR535:AIR2009NOC1000.

ORDERArali Nagaraj, J.1. C.R.P. Nos. 831, 809, 58, 538 of 2005 arc filed by the same petitioners namely the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'BDA' for short) challenging the correctness of the respective orders dated 15.09.2005; 16.09.2005; 26.11.2004 and 11.03.2005 passed respectively in the Execution Case Nos. 1324/04; 361/03; 294/91, and 699/2002 on the file of the learned 2nd Additional City Civil Judge (sitting in CCH No. 17), Bangalore. C.R.P. No. 1059 of 2005 is filed by the claimants in LAC No. 227/89 aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2005 passed in Execution Case No. 2490/2004 on the file of the same Court. The Petitioners to this CRP No, 1059/2004 and also fine respective respondents in other 4 CRPs are the claimants respectively In LAC Nos. 227/89, 152/1988, 157/1988, 254/1984 and 665/1983. These claimants obtained from the Reference Court namely the Court of learned II Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH No. 17), Bangalore, the respective awards in the s...

Sri H.S. Satish Babu Public Information Officer Vs. Sri K.L. Srinivasa ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, assailing the correctness of the order dated 17.6.2008 passed by the Karnataka State information Commissioner, in proceeding No. KIC:257:COM:2008, vide Annexure-B, has presented this writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought to direct the respondent not to deduct the penalty amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the petitioner's salary.2. The first respondent herein has submitted a complaint against the petitioner before the second respondent under Section 18(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 stating that, he has sought for the certified copy of the saguvali chit in respect of Sy. No. 25, Maiigundanahalli, Kengeri granted to Sri. Hanumappa from 1997 to 1999 and copy of sanction order file and inspite of making sincere efforts, petitioner has not considered the request made by first respondent for supply of the certified copies as sought in his representation and therefore, he was constrained to file the said complaint. The said complaint filed by ...

Vinod Sequiera Vs. Bahunji Alias G.M. Hassan Kunhi

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR184; 2009(1)KarLJ75:2008(5)KCCR3364

A.S. Pachhapure, J.1. The appellant has challenged the order of dismissal of his complaint for non-prosecution filed against the respondent for the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:The appellant filed the complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the respondent for taking action under Section 138 of the Act alleging that the respondent borrowed loan of Rs. 60,000.00 in May 2003 and in turn issued a cheque dated 30-8-2003 for an amount of Rs. 60,000.00 towards the repayment of the debt. The cheque was submitted to the Bank for encashment and it returned with an endorsement of insufficient funds. Later the appellant issued notice and though the notice was served to the respondent the amount was not paid. In the circumstances, the appellant approached the Trial Court with the complaint on the above said facts.3. After takin...

Sri H.T. Ganesh S/O. Late Sri Choma Vs. the State of Karnataka Represe ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR478; 2009(2)KarLJ428

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. Petitioner is the owner of a Maruthi Van bearing No. KA-01-2855. He is challenging the order dated 30.06.1999 (wrongly mentioned as 30.05.1999 in the prayer column of the Writ Petition) passed in CrL Misc. No. 52/1993 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shimoga, confirming the order of confiscation dated 05.03.1993 passed by the 2nd respondent - Authorised Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Forest Mobile Squad, Shimoga Circle, Shimoga.2. The 2nd respondent passed an order in exercise of his powers under Section 71-A(2) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short), confiscating the vehicle in question along with sandalwood pieces and chips weighing 167 kgs found in the vehicle. Aggrieved by this order, the owner of the vehicle - petitioner herein filed an appeal under Section 71-D of the Act before the learned Addi Sessions Judge, Shimoga. The said appeal having been dismissed, the present writ petition is filed.3. Th...

Regional Director, Esi Corporation, Vs. the Management of Shagil Preci ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ452; (2009)IILLJ420Kant; 2009(1)AIRKarR487

K. Ramanna, J.1. Both these appeals are filed by the respective appellants, challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated 30/6/2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore, in ESI Application No. 14/2002.2. The appellant/The Regional Director, ESI Corporation, in MFA. No. 6344/2003 has filed this appeal praying to dismiss the ESI Application No. 14/2002 on the file of the ESI Court at Mangalore.3. Whereas, the appellant/The Management of Shagil Precision India, in MFA1391/2004 has filed this appeal praying to refund an amount of Rs. 40,000/- obtained by them under coercion.4. Since both the appeals have been filed challenging the one and the same order passed by one and the same officer in ESI Application 14/2002, both the appeals are taken up together for the sake of convenience in order of avoid repetition of facts and law.5. The case of the appellant in MFA. 1391/2004 is that the appellant/company engaged in manufacture of watch part...

Sri B. Paramashivaiah S/O Late Sri Pandit B. Basappa and Sri B. Chandr ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2009Kant88; 2009(3)KarLJ319; 2009(4)KCCR2783; 2009(2)AIRKarR482; AIR2009Kar88

ORDERB.V. Nagarathna, J.1. These three revision petitions are filed by the tenants challenging the order passed in H.R.C. Nos. 10044/06, 10045/06 and 10043/06 by the order dated: 30.11.07 passed by learned XV Addl. Small Causes Judge(SCCH-19), Bangalore. The said eviction petitions filed by the respondent landlords under Section 27(2)(a), (r) and 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 have been allowed granting the petitioners six months' time to quit and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises.Since common questions arise in these revision petitions, they have been taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order.Although the schedule premises in the three revision petitions are different, the parties in these revision petitions are common and have common interest.2. The relevant facts of the case are that, respondents who are the landlords had initiated eviction petition under Section 27(2)(a), (r) and under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ...