Karnataka Court March 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.
The Commissioner of Income Tax and Vs. Mc Dowell and Company Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Kar)544; [2009]310ITR215(KAR); [2009]310ITR215(Karn); [2009]177TAXMAN317(Kar); ILR2008(3)Kar3218; 2008(3)KCCRSN216; 2008(4)AIRKarR185(DB)
1. In this appeal, filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the IT Act' for short), the Revenue has challenged the correctness of the order dated 23.10.2002 passed under Section 234(2) of the IT Act by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) In Misc. Petition No. 92/Bang/2001 reversing its earlier common order dated 25.9.2000 passed in ITA Nos. 390/Bang/1997 and 422/Bang/1997 and thereby directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of about Rs. 3.67 crores treating the same as revenue expenditure which deduction was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short 'CIT(A)'] and also the Tribunal itself.2. Stated in nutshell the facts leading to the present appeal are as under;a) The assessee namely Mc Dowell Company Ltd. which is respondent herein, has been manufacturing and selling Indian made foreign liquor. For the assessment year 1993-94 this assessee filed its return of income ...
The Joint Director and anr. Vs. Belgaum District Co-operative Milk Pro ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR166]; 2008(5)KarLJ172; (2008)IIILLJ875Kant; 2008(5)KLJ172; 2008(2)KCCRSN169; 2008(4)AIRKarR60; 2008LabIC(NOC)928(Kar)
K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 1-1-2005 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court at Hubli, in ESI Application No. 16 of 2004 with a prayer to dismiss the said application insofar as it affected the appellants.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent establishment is covered under the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and is paying contribution of all the eligible employees. The respondent establishment failed to make payment of contribution in respect of wages paid to the employees for the work done on holidays and on second Saturday and on that basis recovery proceedings were initiated by the appellants, which has been challenged by the respondent before the ESI Court in ESI Application No. 26 of 2000 which came to be allowed by an order dated 24-2-2001. The appellants being aggrieved challenged the said order before this Court, in M.F.A. No. 2242 of 2001 before this Court, which came to be allowed by an order date...
The Hubli-dharwad Municipal Corporation by Its Commissioner Unit Offic ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Kant41
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This second appeal is by the defendant in OS No. 421 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, at Dharwad who though was successful in resisting the money claim of the plaintiff for recovery of sum of Rs. 13,000/- with interest as the suit was dismissed in terms of the Judgment and decree dated 20.11.1995 by the trial court, was not successful before the lower appellate court in RA No. 2 of 1996 filed by the plaintiff which came to be decreed in terms of the Judgment and decree dated 30.11.2001 by the I Additional Civil Judge [Sr. Dn.,] & CJM at Dharwad, is therefore before this Court.2. The brief facts leading to the above appeal are that the plaintiff a person who had participated in auction sale of a building which was being used for octroi office by the defendant - Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation which auction was held on 2.5.1985, had offered the highest bid of Rs. 18,100/- charges and that the licence could be for a period of three years from th...
L.M. Glasfiber General Employees Union Rep. by Its General Secretary S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)KCCRSN277; 2008(4)AIRKarR364
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. Petitioner has questioned the order dated 21.1.2008 passed by the first respondent produced at Annexure-MM.2. Respondent No. 1 by the impugned order has declared that, one S.C. Kumaran and C. Narasimhamurthy of the petitioner - Union are not the workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and they will not be protected workmen.3. Case of the petitioner is that, one S.C. Kumaran and C. Narasimhamurthy were declared as protected workmen for 2007-08. The Union was registered on 17.9,2005 as per Annexure-A. As per Annexure-AA and BB, both these workmen were promoted as Team Leaders w.e.f. 1st September 2005, interalia, fixing the key areas of responsibility and accountability. Based on the said letters, these workmen were appointed as Team Leaders. By letter dated 21.9.2005, the Management wrote a letter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner for cancellation of the registration of the Union. A notic...
Saeesh Subhash Hegde S/O Late Subhash Rayu Hegde Vs. Darshana Saeesh H ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Kant142; ILR2008(3)Kar3881; 2008(3)KCCR1657; 2008(4)AIRKarR46; 2008AIHC2745.
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel for the respondent.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner is a Goan, born of Goan parents, and had married the respondent on 26.12.2002 in accordance with the Portuguese Family Law, which is applicable to this day in the State of Goa, following the procedure under the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Code'). In proof of the same, the petitioner has produced a Marriage Certificate issued by the Office of Civil Registration Offices of Goa dated 13.7.2006.3. The petitioner and respondent had met in Belgaum when they new students of Gogte Institute of Technology in the year 1998. They were classmates It is contended that they had fallen in love and decided to get married secretly in Goa, as the respondent did not expect her parents to consent to their marriage. And the respondent, according to the petitioner, had gone over to Goa on 31.12.2002 to ...
Raja Associates, a Partnership Firm Pharmaceutical Distributors Repres ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Kant136; 2009(2)KarLJ50; 2008(2)KCCRSN165; 2008(4)AIRKarR35; AIR2008Kar136
ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 herein is a registered partnership firm who took over the running business of wholesale distribution of pharmaceuticals.2. The earlier owner of the said business had banking transactions with Karnataka Rank Limited and on taking over the said business, the petitioner approached (the respondents-bank to take over the existing liability of the said whole sale pharmaceuticals business from Karnataka Bank Limited. Accordingly, the respondents took over the liabilities by sanctioning to petitioner No. 1 the facility of Rs. 35,00,000/- cash credit facility in two different accounts against hypothecation of stock in trade and on assignment of book debts on certain terms and conditions. The petitioner alleges that when this was the position, there was a fire accident in the godown belonging to the petitioner on 4.7.2003 and according to the petitioner since the insurance policy stood in the name of the bank, the bank should have sought for the insur...
Sri K. Shashidhar S/O Late M. Krishna Murthy Vs. the Managing Director ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-2008
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ177Kant; 2008(5)KLJ310; 2008(3)KCCRSN197; 2008(4)AIRKarR149; 2008LabIC2628Kar
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. The award dated 21.2.2006 in Ret. No. 75/2004 is called in question by the workman.2. The workman sought for reference against the dismissal order passed against him on 31.3.2001. The respondent had dispensed the enquiry by invoking the provisions of Clause-14 Sub-clause (iii) of the KEB Employees (CDC & A) Regulations, 1987 and had passed an order of dismissal. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 3844/1999. The said Writ Petition was allowed and the order of punishment was quashed. However, liberty was given to the respondent to pass appropriate resolution as contemplated under the Regulation 14(iii) of the Regulation. Thereafter, the Board passed a resolution interalia, observing that, it is not expedient to hold a detailed enquiry by following the procedure laid down under the Regulations 11, 12 & 13 of the said Regulation and directed the Disciplinary Authority to pass such orders as deemed fit as contemplated un...
Radha Bai W/O Uttamara Gaonkar Since Deceased by Her Legal Representat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KCCR845; 2009(3)AIRKarR310; AIR2009NOC2220
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the first defendant in OS No. 9 of 1991 on the file of the court of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.,] Dharwad who has suffered a decree for yielding possession in favour of the plaintiffs in the suit and which Judgment and decree came to be affirmed by the lower appellate court in RA No. 42 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge [Sr. Dn.,] Dharwad.2. It is because of such concurrent failures, the present second appeal.3. The suit was on the premise that the plaintiffs 1 to 5 and defendants 2 to 5 constituted members of the joint family; that a particular family property, namely, agricultural land measuring an extent of 2 acres 3 guntas bearing block No. 572 of Kelageri Village in Dharwad Taluk had been in possession of the first defendant purporting to be based on an agreement to sell dated 20.3.1975 executed by the defendants 2 to 5; that the plaintiffs are not partie...
Dr. M. Venkataramanappa Vs. the Chancellor, Bangalore University and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2013; 2008(4)KarLJ3;
H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 13.04.2007 in W.P. No, 13031/2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.2. In the year 2002 the respondent- University awarded Ph.D. by duly admitting the appellant for convocation for his research on the subject 'Small Farmers in Rural Karnataka-A Sociological Study'. The first respondent - Chancellor received complaints stating that the thesis submitted by the appellant was plagiarized. Similar complaints were also given to the fourth respondent - Vice Chancellor. The first respondent - Chancellor by his communication dated 29.03.2003 directed the fourth respondent - Vice Chancellor to enquire into the matter and to take appropriate action and to report compliance of the same within one month. Before the communication dated 29.03.2003 reached the Vice Chancellor, the respondent - University referred the thesis submitted by the appellant to the Institute for S...
Sri Honnurappa S/O Late Thippamma Vs. R. Masthan W/O R. Rehamatullah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2559; 2009(4)KarLJ190; 2008(3)KCCR1787; 2008(4)AIRKarR70
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 23.6.2007 passed in Civil Misc. No. Nil/2005 by the I Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC Hospet, has presented the instant Civil Revision Petition.2. Along with the instant revision petition, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has filed I.A. No. I of 2007 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 36 days in filing the instant revision petition. The said delay has been explained by the petitioner in Para-4 of the affidavit dated 6.11.2007 filed along with the application stating that, he was informed by his counsel in the last week of June 2007 that the miscellaneous petition filed by him was rejected on 23.6.2007 and he has applied for a certified copy of the same on the same day and informed him to come over to Hospet immediately to instruct whether if he wants to challenge the order passed by Court below.3. Further, he has stated that, petitioner learnt that he has 90 days time t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »