Karnataka Court July 2008 Judgments
Canara Bank Golden Jubilee Staff Welfare Fund Vs. Deputy Commissioner ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Kar)286; [2009]308ITR202(KAR); [2009]308ITR202(Karn); [2009]184TAXMAN508(Kar)
1. These two appeals are filed by the assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in I. T. A. No. 478/ Bang/ 2001 and 479/Bang/2001, dated May 13, 2003, for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, respectively, since the substantial questions of law framed in these two appeals are identical and parties are same, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The appellant is a registered society comprising of the employees of Canara Bank established with the object of promoting welfare among the members, who contribute towards the corpus fund. The welfare fund is utilized, inter alia, towards advance of loans to the members and receive interest, which is a major portion of its revenue. For the assessment year 1995-96 and 1996-97 in respect of excess income over expenditure of Rs. 4,20,719 and Rs. 6,08,303. The appellant claimed exemption from tax on the basis of the principle of mutuality. The assessment was processed under Section 143(1...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Nawaz and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ406; 2009(1)AIRKarR77
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In these two writ petitions, common questions are raised regarding the validity of the notification issued by the State Government reserving some wards coming within the limits of the urban local bodies for various categories for the purpose of election. Hence, both the writ petitions are clubbed together and are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.2. In W.P. No. 12864 of 2007, there are seven petitioners. They are residents of the local limits of Mangalore City Corporation. They have approached this Court contending that they were the intending candidates to the elections to be held to the 3rd respondent-Mangalore City Corporation.3. The Mangalore City Corporation consists of 60 wards. As per 2001 census, delimitation of wards was done. No change in the number of wards were made although certain addition of population in respect of these wards was done. As regards reservation in favour of different categories by way of rotation, guidelines were issued b...
Tag this Judgment!Adinath JaIn Swthambar Mandir Trust Represented by Its President Uttam ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)KCCR1031; 2009(2)AIRKarR132(D.B)
Manjula Chellur, J.1. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein received final notice contemplated Under Section 321(3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, (for short 'the Act'), regarding the alleged unauthorised construction in violation of the sanctioned plan and by-laws. The said notice is dated 11.12.2002. It is also not in dispute that challenging the notice Under Section 321(3) of the Act, the appellant approached the Standing Committee Under Section 444 in appeal on 3.1.2003. On the very same day, the Standing Committee of the Corporation stayed the operation of the order issued Under Section 321(3). Nothing seems to have occurred till 20.8.2003. On the said date, the gazette notification came to be published by-introducing or inserting Section 443-A which reads as under:Appeal to Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or District Court.-(1) Any person aggrieved by any notice issued, action taken or proposed to be taken by the Commissioner under Sections 308, 309 and 321(...
Tag this Judgment!Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan Vs. the Principal Secretary to Government of Karna ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-2008
Reported in: ILR2008(4)KAR4327; 2009(3)KarLJ465
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this Writ Petition the order at Annexure-E dated 27.6.2008 passed by the Government of Karnataka removing the petitioner from the Chairmanship of the Karnataka State Haj Committee from office with immediate effect under Sub-clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Haj Committee Act, 2002.2. The case in brief is as under:The petitioner was nominated by the State Government as a Member of the Karnataka State Haj Committee by a Notification dated 16.8.2006, along with 15 other members for a period of three years. The petitioner was unanimously elected as the Chairman of the State Committee as per Annexure-A. The said Committee is the first Committee constituted by the State Government after the enactment of the Haj Committee Act, 2002 (hereinafter for short referred to as 'the Act'). On 12.5.2008 the petitioner received a show cause notice from the first respondent asking him to show cause why action should not be taken again...
Tag this Judgment!Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sheela and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1433
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondents.2. These appeals are considered together. The respondent No. 1 in each of these appeals were the claimants before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity). They were occupants of a private jeep which had met with an accident and as a result of the same, the said respondents having been injured, had laid a claim for compensation before the Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal having addressed their claim petitions has fastened the liability on the appellant, which was the insurer of the concerned vehicle and it is this liability which is sought to be challenged.3. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the policy in respect of the insured vehicle was a 'A' policy issued under the India Motor Tariff, 1989 and, therefore, the liability of the insurer was clearly absolved in respect of an occupant of the insured vehicle. In that, the 'A' policy covered the risk as ...
Tag this Judgment!The National Insurance Company Limited Represented by Bangalore Region ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1587:2009(1)KCCR165:2008(6)AIRKarR419:AIR2009NOC294.
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. These appeals are decided by this common judgment as the question arising for consideration is common to all.2. The Counsel for the parties were heard.3. The appellant in all these appeals, except in MFA. No. 11983/2006, is the National Insurance Company Limited, a general Insurance Company (Hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer' for brevity). The insurer has challenged its liability to satisfy the award of compensation in respect of motor accident claims brought by the respective pillion riders of the insured vehicles in each of these cases.4. In appeal MFA. No. 11983/2006, the appellant is one of the claimants (arraigned as respondent No. 1 in MFA. No. 455/2007) seeking enhancement of compensation, the same is de-linked and dealt with separately.5. The facts are almost identical in each case. The vehicles involved are motor cycles. The insured while riding the same in a rash manner had caused the vehicle to fall to the ground resulting in injuries to the pilli...
Tag this Judgment!M.D. Uthaiah (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Mandepanda Aiyanna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)KarLJ688
ORDERRavi Malimath, J.1. The petitioners' application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to club O.S. No. 212 of 1989 together with O.S. Nos. 240 of 1989, 242 of 1990, 151 of 1995 and 161 of 1996 has been rejected by the Court below by the impugned order. Hence, this petition.2. The Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has come to the conclusion that the application deserves to be rejected since the reliefs claimed and the subject-matter of the suits being different, it is inconvenient to club the suits together.3. I have heard the learned Counsels appearing on both the sides.4. It is seen that the schedule property in all the suits arise out of the parent Sy. No. 85 situated at Byrambada Village. The different suits seeking various reliefs are with reference to the very same Sy. No. though different fractional numbers were given to the schedule property. I, therefore, of the view that in the interest of justice, it is necessary that all the suits be heard to...
Tag this Judgment!P. Nagaraj Vs. State by Shiralakoppa Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR4824; 2008(4)KCCR2653(DB)
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This Court in Bhanuprakash and Anr. v. State by A.C.F. ILR 2006 Kar 3216 has laid down that in a prosecution of an offence Under Section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act (hereinafter called 'Act') to prove the guilt of the accused, it is mandatory for the prosecution to prove that the seizing officer Under Section 63(2) of the Act has reported the seizure to the confiscating authority Under Section 71-A if the forest produce seized is of the nature stated in Section 63(2)(a). The failure to prove the said compliance Under Section 62(3) would vitiate the trial. The court while laying down the ratio relied on the ruling of this Court in Ningappa Bhimappa Gundammanavar and Anr. v. State of Mysore ILR 1973 Kar 897.2. The revision petitioners were prosecuted for illegal possession of sandal wood billets. The Trial Court convicted the petitioners. The appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed. The convicted ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakke Gowda Vs. H. Visveswara Jois (Dead) by L.Rs and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)KarLJ710:2008(5)KCCRSN680
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed on 8th December, 1988 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Hassan District, Hassan in No. (LRAA).RA.468/1986.2. Brief facts leading to this case are:The land bearing Sy. No. 42 measuring 5 acres 30 guntas situated at Cholamballi Village, Chennarayapatna Taluk is a religious and charitable inam land and covered under the provisions of Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. Petitioner herein had filed an application for grant of occupancy rights as a tenant under Section 9 of the Act whereas, one H. Prahlada Shastri alleged to have filed an application under Section 6-A of the Act.4. Earlier, the Special Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his power under the provisions of the Act, had passed an order on 6-2-1976 granting occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner herein. The said order was appealed before the Appellate Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Konkan Marine Agencies
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Reported in: [2009]313ITR308(KAR); [2009]313ITR308(Karn)
B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in I. T. A. No. 670/Bang/2000, dated May 17, 2004.2. The relevant facts of the case are that the respondent-assesses who is carrying on business as stevedoring, clearing and forwarding agents and is being assessed in the status of a firm. For the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee had filed return of income which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act and with respect to profit and loss account a sum of Rs. 32,32,601 was debited as stevedoring charges. On verifying these expenses claimed, it was found by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had produced certain self-made vouchers endorsed by the assessee's own employees and that these were other than the regular salary and other allowances which itself was taxable under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer found that in the absence of prope...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »