Karnataka Court February 2008 Judgments
Jayalakshmamma Vs. N. Srinivasa Sastry (Dead) by L.Rs and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ175; 2008(3)KCCRSN217
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner has filed the instant civil petition praying to treat the appeal as writ petition and to dispose of the matter on merits on the ground that, in view of the abolition of Land Reforms Appellate Authority, in view of amendment of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.2. When this matter had come up for consideration before this Court on 14-2-2008 and 19-2-2008, this Court had directed the learned Government Pleader appearing for 2nd respondent to secure the original records from the file of the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 214 of 1987 and also the records of the Land Tribunal. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Government Pleader appearing for 2nd respondent has produced the original records.3. After careful evaluation of the entire original records available on file at threadbare and after microscopic evaluation, what it emerges is that, petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 5th Octobe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Hinduja Exports
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: [2009]312ITR61(KAR); [2009]312ITR61(Karn)
Deepak Verma, J.1. Heard Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri S. Parthasarathi, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on August 19, 2002, in I. T. A. No. 36/Bang/1999. The following substantial question of law has been formulated in this appeal.Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the negative export profits should be ignored when aggregating the total turnover including other exports by not taking into consideration the specific definition adduced in Section 80HHC read with Section 80AB of the Act for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act?3. The question that has been formulated in the said appeal stands answered by two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy CYT reported in : [2004]266ITR521(SC) and in the case of A.M. Moosa v. C...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maini Precision Products P. L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: [2009]314ITR134(KAR); [2009]314ITR134(Karn)
Deepak Verma, J.1. Sri Indra Kumar, senior counsel with Sri E. I. San-mathi appeared for the appellant and Sri K. P. Kumar, senior counsel appeared for the respondent.2. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act'), is at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated April 28, 2000, passed in I.T.A. Nos. 244, 245 and 266/Bang/1998 for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. These appeals before the Tribunal were filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Along with this appeal, we have also heard the connected appeals, the details of which are given in the later part of the order and with this order they will also stand disposed of on the similar directions.3. Even though four substantial questions of law have been formulated by learned Counsel for the appellant, but after having heard and after perusing the record, we find that onl...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Welcast Steel Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: [2009]314ITR36(KAR); [2009]314ITR36(Karn)
Deepak Verma, J.1. Heard Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri S. Parthasarathi, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on March 21, 2003, in I.T.A. No. 226/Bang/1998. The following substantial question of law has been formulated in this appeal.Whether the Tribunal was correct in 'holding that the negative export profits should be ignored when aggregating the total turnover including other export by not taking into consideration the specific definition adduced in Section 80HHC read with Section 80AB of the Act for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act?3. The question that has been formulated in the said appeal stands answered by two judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy CIT : [2004] 266 ITR 521 and in the case of A.M. Moosa v. CIT : [2007] 2...
Tag this Judgment!B. Chandravathi Shetty D/O Late B. Loku Shetty and W/O Muddanna Shetty ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)KCCR1029; 2008(3)AIRKarR366; AIR2008NOC1955; 2008AIHC2570(Kar)
V. Jagannathan, J.1. This second appeal involves short but important questions of law apart from the ones framed by this Court while admitting the appeal. The first question to whether the lower appellate court could have disregarded the directions given to it by this Court while remanding the matter on the ground that the said directions are nullity or non-east in the eye of law and secondary, whether a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction can go beyond the earlier final decision of its predecessor before remand. These and other related questions call for an answer in this second appeal.2. The facts giving rise to this judgment, briefly stated, are to the effect that the appellants herein, who were the plaintiffs before the trial court in O.S. No. 292/1983, filed the suit in question for permanent injunction against the defendant, who happens to be the brother of the two appellants, and it was the case of the appellants that the items mentioned in suit Schedule 'A' belonged to them follo...
Tag this Judgment!Raghupathy Bhat, President Taxi Owners Association 'Guruprasad' and Or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Kant203; 2008(4)KCCR2159; 2008(6)AIRKarR102
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is against Annexures-A, B, C and D Notifications issued by the Government of Karnataka. The impugned notifications relate to the fixing of Speed Governors in transport vehicles mentioned in the notifications. The 1st petitioner is the President of Taxi Men's Association, Udupi District Petitioners-2 and 3 are the Taxi Men's Association of the Dakshina Kannada and Udupi Districts. The 4th petitioner is the General Secretary of the Dakshina Kannada Taxi Men's Association. Petitioners-5 and 6 are owners of Maxi Cab and Tata Sumo vehicles which are classified as Maxi Cabs. The contention of the petitioners is that Maxi Cabs should not have been brought under the purview of the impugned notifications as they are passenger vehicles. It is also contended that Speed Governors are not available in plenty in the market2. According to Section 110(1)(f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Central Government is competent to make Rules regar...
Tag this Judgment!G. Rangaiah S/O Govindappa Vs. Govindappa S/O Sanna Rangappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Kant151; 2008(6)KarLJ285; 2008(3)KCCR1405; 2008(4)AIRKar136; AIR2008Kar151; 2008AIHC2786(Kar); 2008(6)KarLJ285; 2008(3)KCCR1405; 2008AIHC2786(Kar)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This Second Appeal is by the plaintiff in OS No. 384 of 1993, a suit for partition and separate possession of his one-fourth share in the suit schedule properties. Suit was on the premise that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 constituted a joint family with defendant No. 1 being father of the plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 being the step brothers of the plaintiff and the Defendant No. 4 being step mother of the plaintiff, which possessed all the properties described in the schedule to the plaint and as the defendant No. 1 was entering into many transactions with defendants 5 and 6 and even within the defendants 1 to 4 which is detriment to the interest of the plaintiff and as the first defendant was denying the due share of the plaintiff, it had become necessary to sue for the share of the plaintiff.2. This suit though contested by the defendants had been decreed by the trial court, but the Judgment and decree having been set aside by the lower appellate co...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. M. Mahalingam Vs. Smt. Shashikala Since Deceased by Lrs and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR4055
N. Kumar, J.1. This is a defendants second appeal, against a concurrent finding. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.2. The subject matter of the suit, are the four sites bearing No. 3, 4, 7 and 8, of different dimensions which are adjoining each other situated in Chikkabanavara Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.3. The case of the plaintiffs is that land bearing Sy. No. 92/3 of Chikkabanavara Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk measuring 17 guntas originally belonged to the defendant. The defendant formed a layout of residential sites. The Defendant executed power of attorneys dated 24.10.1985, 3-9-1986 and 16-9-1986 in respect of site Nos. 4, 3, 7 and 8 in favour of first plaintiff Shashikala, Channabasavaradya, Suma and Ambika. The defendant also executed consideration receipts and affidavits. The possession of the respective sites were handed-over by the defendant to each of the atto...
Tag this Judgment!Sri B. Patil Shidagouda Shivagouda, Vs. the Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2386; 2008(4)KarLJ347; 2008(3)AIRKarR271; AIR2008NOC1836; 2008AIHC2456(Kar)
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioners in all these twenty Civil Revision Petitions, being aggrieved by a portion of the order dated 28.2.2008 passed in Execution Nos. 72/04, 73/04, 74/04, 75/04, 76/04, 71/04, 77/04, 78/04, 79/04, 80/04,, 81/04, 82/04, 83/04, 84/04, 85/04, 86/04, 87/04, 88/04, 89/04 and 90/04 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC, Athani, Belgaum District, have presented the instant Revision Petitions.2. In all these 20 cases, the petitioners herein contended that, the respondent have taken the possession of their lands as early as on 25.3.1973 before issuing preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called as 'Act'). The competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act has issued preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the same was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 3.1.1985. The award has been passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 27.3.1989. Not being satisfied with the a...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ananth Padmanabha S/O Sri N. Ramakrishnaiah, Assistant Engineer, M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)KarLJ9; ILR2008(2)Kar2457; 2008(2)KCCR1219; 2008(3)AIRKarR355; 2008LabIC(NOC)875(Kar)
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. Petitioner has questioned the communication dated 14.5.2007 from the first respondent to the second respondent.2. Petitioner claims that he was appointed as an Assistant Engineer on daily wage basis on 11.4.1989 and his services came to be regularized w.e.f. 11.4.1999. Under Section 84 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), power is conferred on the Commissioner to make appointment to the post in the Corporation other than the posts to be filled either under Section 82 or Section 85 and 86.3. In this regard, he referred to Section 82 of the Act and submitted that, posts like Officers of State Civil Service, Engineer, Health Officer, Revenue Officer, Chief Accounts Officer, Council Secretary have to be appointed by the Government He also referred to Rule 26 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Rules, 1977 and submitted that, though under this Rule, the posts specified in column No. 2 are required to be appoi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »