Karnataka Court October 2008 Judgments

H. Abdul Rasheed Vs. Madrasa-e-arabia by Its Secretary

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ43:2009(3)AIRKarR140:AIR2009N0C2181.

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. This appeal is by defendant, questioning the decree passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court, directing to vacate and hand over possession of suit schedule premises and to pay damages to the plaintiff.2. Facts which have given rise to this appeal, in a nutshell are:Respondent/plaintiff is a registered wakf. It owns a building complex at Ashoka Road, Mysore, consisting of shops, office accommodation, etc. It has leased shop Nos. 1 and 2 therein, on monthly rent of Rs. 75/- each, to appellant/defendant. Plaintiff had filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a) & (h) of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, against the defendant, which was disposed by holding that, the provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the petition schedule premises. Thereafter, terminating the tenancy of defendant, suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), at Mysore, to direct the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the schedule ...

Bharathi Souhardha Credit Co-operative Ltd. by Its President Sri. Kunj ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ593; 2009(1)KCCR749; 2009(2)AIRKarR451

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing by consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.2. It is noticed that notice issued to respondents-5 and 7 is not yet returned, but it is observed by this Court that they are not necessary parties to adjudicate the matter in controversy. Accordingly, notice to them is dispensed with.3. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Souhardha Sahakari Act, 1997 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). According to the petition averments, the petitioner-Society is conducting its business without there being any allegations of whatsoever nature either by its customers or by its; members. The present petition is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-F dated 15th September 2008, wherein, the petitioner-Society has been superceded and an Administrator has been appointed exerci...

Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Chamundeshwari Sugar Limited

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Kar)423; ILR2009KAR407; [2009]309ITR326(KAR); [2009]309ITR326(Karn); [2009]183TAXMAN285(Kar)

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The respondent-assessee, a company running a sugar factory for the assessment year 1992-93, installed pollution control machinery as per the mandate of the Pollution Control Board. The assessee sought for depreciation to the extent of the value of the machinery installed. The Assessing Officer found that the machinery that was installed was found to be defective during the trial runs, therefore, held that the machinery was not used for the purpose of business as required under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has rejected the request for depreciation. The Commissioner of Income-tax and the Tribunal, in the appeals, have held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation because the machinery was installed and merely because it did not effectively function is not a ground to reject the depreciation.2. The State is in appeal against the order of depreciation. Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Counsel for the appellants relied on the decision ...

S.N. Murthy S/O D. Narayanaswamy, Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. by Its S ...

Court: Karnataka

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal is filed by the petitioners in W.P. No. 83/2007 being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 5.9.2007 wherein the writ petition seeking for quashing of the order dated 24.12.2005 appointing respondents 3 to 6 in the writ petition as notaries has been dismissed.2. The Government issued a notification calling for application for appointment to the post of Notaries. The second respondent-Prl.District Judge, Hassan, is the competent authority under the Notaries Act. The second respondent issued a notification on 24.6.2005 calling for memorials of Advocates who have put in more than ten years of practice for appointment to the post of Notary in accordance with Notaries Rules, 1956 (for short 'the Rules'), application to be submitted on or before 24.6.2005. The writ petitioners 1 to 4-respondents 3 to 6 and others made an application for appointment of notary and on the recommendation of the second respondent, the Government has issued...

S.N. Murthy and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KantLJ185; 2009(1)KCCR630; AIR2009KAR46; 2009(1)KarLJ185

1. This appeal is filed by the petitioners in W.P. No. 83 of 2007 being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 5-9-2007 wherein the writ petition seeking for quashing of the order dated 24-12-2005 appointing respondents 3 to 6 in the writ petition as notaries has been dismissed.2. The Government issued a notification calling for application for appointment to the post of Notaries. The second respondent-Principal District Judge, Hassan, is the Competent Authority under the Notaries Act, 1952. The second respondent issued a notification on 24-6-2005 calling for memorials of Advocates who have put in more than ten years of practice for appointment to the post of notary in accordance with Notaries Rules. 1956 (for short, 'the Rules'), application to be submitted on or before 24-6-2005. The writ petitioners 1 to 4-respondents 3 to 6 and others made an application for appointment of notary and on the recommendation of the second respondent, the Government has issued ...

T.R. Jaganath S/O Late Tadas Ramachandra Rao Vs. Gokul Promoters Pvt. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ162

ORDERB.V. Nagarathna, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the tenant challenging the order dated 28.8.2008 under which all further proceedings in HRC. No. 221/2003 has been stopped and he has been directed to put the respondent/landlord in possession of the petition schedule premises within one month from the date of the order, failing which the respondent herein is at liberty to take possession of the premises by due course of law.2. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the trial court as per their jural relationship.3. The respondent/landlord filed HRC. No. 221/2003 under Section 27(1)(a) & (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. During the pendency of the said petition an application under Section 45 of the said Act was filed by the landlord on 23.2.2005 directing the petitioner/tenant to pay the arrears of rent from 1.2.2005 to 1.11.2007 amounting to Rs. 94,792/-. On the said application an order was made on 22.2.2008 by the ...

Sri V. Venkatavardhan S/O Vankatashamappa Vs. the Deputy Commissioner,

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR575; 2009(9)KarLJ120

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The above appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 17.6.2008 made in Writ Petition No. 3031/2008, confirming order of the 1st respondent - Deputy Commissioner dated 16.1.2008, whereunder the Deputy Commissioner directed the revenue officials to enter the name of the 4threspondent - Trust, over the land to an extent of 13 acres in Sy. No. 10 of Varadanayakanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Sbidlaghatta Taluk, which was granted to the 4th respondent by proceedings of the Government dated 23.4.1993 for running an educational institution, superseding the earlier order of the Tahsildar granting 25 acres of land in favour of the 4threspondent The 4threspondent-Trust, by virtue of the order of the Government dated 23.4.1993, was in effective possession and enjoyment of the property to an extent of 13 acres in Sy. No. 10 referred to above.2.1. The appellant - petitioner alleging that the 13 acres of land granted by the Government to 4thresponde...

Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Tata Lucent Technologies Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]318ITR110(KAR); [2009]318ITR110(Karn)

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The respondent (assessee) filed return for the assessment year 1996-97. The assessee had imported the materials from abroad. There was one transaction towards import of materials for which the assessee had shown the loss of Rs. 1,37,57,730 in respect of unpaid bills on account of fluctuation in the foreign exchange rate (FER). In respect of another transaction of supply of materials, the assessee had disclosed the gain of Rs. 1,08,13,049 towards unpaid bills on account of fluctuation in the foreign exchange rate. In respect of yet another transaction, the assessee had disclosed the loss towards unpaid bills on account of foreign exchange rate fluctuation in a sum of Rs. 69,25,345.2. The assessee had set off the gain as against the loss in the transaction and disclosed the loss at the rate of Rs. 69,25,345 in one transaction and Rs. 29,44,681 in respect of other transaction. The Assessing Officer accepted the return of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax i...

Smt. Sannamma W/O Bore Gowda and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka by Its De ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. These petitions are filed in respect of acquisition of properties by the respondent KIADB. For developing and establishment of industrial area, the KIADB issued notifications under Section 1(3), 3(1) and 28(1) on 15.9.2000 for which the petitioners filed objections. Pursuant to the objections filed and also pursuant to the directions issued by the Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Member, the Development Officer concluded the acquisition proceedings on 24.10.2000, as dropped. Even in the meeting held on 7.11.2003, it was resolved to drop the land from acquisition by the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent pursuant to the directions of the Board issued on 10.12.2003 withdrew the notifications so published. The 3rd respondent issued a letter dated 8.7.2004 regarding publication of notifications once again. However, final notification was issued on 28.4.2005 acquiring the land of the petitioners on 13.5.2005. As per the report of the Development Office...

S S M and Sons Carrying on Business in Hosiery Rep by Its Partner Sri ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERB.V. Nagarathna, J.1. These three revisions petitions are filed by the applicants who had filed I.A. Nos. X, XI and XVI before the Court below, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the same by order dated 11.12.2001 in Execution Petition No. 8611/1993.2. The relevant facts of the case are that one Smt. Nanjamma and her son Sri Rajanna who are since deceased and Rajanna being represented by his legal representatives, had filed an eviction petition in HRC No. 2844/1981 against the tenants in respect of premises bearing No. 100 and 102 which shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'schedule premises' under Section 21(1) (a), (f), (h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 as it then existed, before the Court of Small Causes at Bangalore. By the order dated 28.3.1987, the said eviction petition was allowed under Section 21(1)(h) directing the tenants to vacate the premises within six months from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by the said order, CRP No. 4321/1987 and CR...