Karnataka Court July 2008 Judgments
Raja Charity Trust Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: (2010)24VST344(Karn)
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.2. This appeal is by the assessee challenging the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Zone I, Bangalore dated November 8, 2006. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax exercising its powers conferred under Section 22A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act issued a show-cause notice on February 7, 2005 stating that the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals) in the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of reassessment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Assessment) 14, Bangalore has to be revised as the same is illegal, improper and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. According to him the assessing authority while concluding the assessment had levied the tax at 12 per cent on the A. C. sheets supplied by the assessee to the taluk panchayat and that the same has been reduced to four ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Vidya Sagar Educational Trust
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Reported in: [2009]315ITR298(KAR); [2009]315ITR298(Karn)
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The appeal is by the Revenue and cross-objections are by the assessee. In the circumstances, these two matters are taken up together for hearing.2. The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in I.T.A. No 229/Bang/2003 wherein the Tribunal has reversed the concurrent findings of the order of assessment and the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bangalore.3. Facts of the case are as hereunder:4. The respondent-assesses is a trust running an educational institution. According to the assessee, for the assessment year 2001-02, it had obtained an exemption under Section 10(22), (23C) of the Income-tax Act. For the relevant assessment year, the assessee was required to file return of income on or before October 30, 2001, and the assessee did not file return of income within the stipulated time and the same was filed belatedly on...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ramachandra and ors. Vs. Sri Shivaram and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR4878
ORDER 41 RULE 31 - Compliance to the provisions of - Non-Mentioning the points for consideration in chronological order in its judgment by the lower Appellate Court - Whether the judgment is vitiated for Non-compliance of the requirement of order 41 Rule 31 - HELD, Order 41 Rule 31 deals with the contents, date and signature of the judgment, provides that the judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state the point for determination, the decision thereon, the reasoning for the decision and whether the decree appealed from, is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. - In the instant case, the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, no doubt, does not indicate that the learned Judge had formulated various points for determination. - At the same time, on carefully going through the judgment of the lower Appellate Court which incidentally runs to as many as 246 pages, the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has dealt with all the issues...
Tag this Judgment!Saleem Khan and anr. Vs. N. Srinivasa Naidu and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR3674; 2009(2)KarLJ459; ILR2008(3)Kar3674;
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioners are stage carriage permit holders on route Chitradurga to Kolthure, whose applications for variation by extension of the route from Kolthure to Malur, when allowed by resolution dated 27.12.1991 of the Regional Transport Authority, Tumkur (RTA), was followed by issue of variation endorsements dated 9.1.1992 Annexures C and D. Thereafter, the RTA by resolution dated 22.7.2004 granted variation of the permits, by way of curtailment from Bangalore to Malur, one round trip, and extension from Hoskote Santhe Gate to Mothakhalli, and accordingly, issued, variation endorsements dated 4.9.2004 Annexure-F and G. The RTA by another resolution granted extension from Mothakhalli to Kaylnoor and issued endorsements dated 10.9.2004 Annexure-J and J1. Yet another extension was granted to the petitioners' permits, for the route from Kaylnoor to Marugamalla via Chintamani, followed by endorsements dated 2.11.2004 Annexure-K and K1. Respondents 1 to 3, aggrieve...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Shivanandaiah K.S. Vs. the District Registrar of Co-op. Societies ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR4088; 2009(1)KarLJ151
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person who had been elected as president of the fourth respondent-Co-operative society in a special meeting of the executive committee fixed for such purpose on the expiry of the term of the previous president, but whose election has been nullified by the second respondent-assistant registrar of Co-operative societies on the premise that the meeting did not have the sufficient quorum at the time of conducting the election and that order is affirmed in appeal by the first respondent-district registrar of Co-operative societies.2. It is aggrieved by such adverse orders, though the petitioner claims to have been declared elected by the support of all the three directors who attended the meeting held on 10-12-2006, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the orders declaring the election to be invalid and to prevent the conduct of fresh elections to be held on 15-7-2008.3. I have heard Sri Chandrashekar P Patil, learned Couns...
Tag this Judgment!H.C. Siddaramaiah Vs. D. Krishnappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ319
K. Ramanna, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant-complainant challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Cri. A. No. 21 of 2003, dated 17-7-2004.2. The case of the appellant-complainant herein is that respondent has borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as hand loan and for repayment of the same issued a cheque bearing No. 288938, dated 12-4-1999 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Ammasandra Branch. When the appellant has presented the cheque to his banker for collection which was returned with an endorsement 'funds insufficient to honour the cheque'. Therefore, the appellant got issued a legal notice on 15-4-1998 to the respondent-accused and he sent a reply on 13-5-1998 wherein he admitted the transaction but he sought six months time for repayment. To prove his case the appellant was examined as P.W. 1 and also examined one S.K Vidya as P.W. 2 to corroborate his evidence, whereas respondent was examined as D.W. 1 and examine...
Tag this Judgment!Gurukula Education Trust (R) and ors. Vs. the Secretary to Government, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ75
ORDERB.V. Nagarathna, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners who are three in number are private unaided educational institutions who had made applications to start English medium primary schools from 1st Standard to 5th Standard and accordingly, had sought permission by the respective authorities. However, by virtue of the impugned Annexures-B2, C4 and D2 respectively, permission for starting English medium schools was rejected. Hence, they have filed this writ petition challenging the said Annexures.2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in the light of the Full Bench opinion of this Court dated 2-7-2008 in the case of Associated Managements of Primary and Secondary Schools in Karnataka v. State of Karnataka and Ors. : ILR2008KAR2895 and connected cases with regard to the challenge made to the language policy of the State Government, this writ petition could be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the applications of the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Fifth Avenue Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-2008
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Kar)442; [2009]319ITR127(KAR); [2009]319ITR127(Karn)
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is by the assessee challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA No. 860/Bang/1996, dt. 20th Oct., 2003 wherein the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT{A) has been allowed in part. The facts of the case are as hereunder:The appellant is a registered partnership firm consisting of 15 partners. The firm is being managed by three partners by name, Irfan Razack, K. Rahman Khan and Sri Sadath All Khan. The firm constructed a commercial complex known as 'Fifth Avenue' consisting of ground + three floors. The building is consisting of 82 commercial shops. The building was under construction till the end of January, 1993. Different shops are sold by the firm under different sale deeds to several buyers. On 5th Jan., 1993 exercising the powers under Section 132 of IT Act, M/s India Builders Corporation (which is also a partnership firm) was searched. Duri...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Srinivasa Shetty Vs. Sunil Transport Company
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR4099; 2009(1)KarLJ227; ILR2008(4)Kar4099; 2008(4)KCCR2361
K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30/7/2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Harihar, in CC. No. 799/2004 acquitting the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing on both sides and perused the documents.3. The short point that arises for my consideration and decision is whether the appellant/complainant presented the cheque for encashment within six months from the date which is written on the cheque? If so, whether the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is perverse, incorrect or illegal?4. It is seen that the appellant has filed the complaint through his power of attorney holder. The appellant/company was running a petrol bunk dealing with the business of supply of petrol and diesel. The appellant had supplied petrol and diesel to the respondent to the tune of Rs. 6,61,630/- and the cheque Ex.P.2 dr...
Tag this Judgment!Sesappa Poojary and ors. Vs. P.K. Karunakara and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2516:2009(4)KCCRSN261:2008(6)AIRKarR402:AIR2009NOC295
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. All these appeals are considered together having regard to common questions of law that are raised.2. (a) In the appeal in M.F.A. No. 1293 of 2006, the appellants are the parents and minor sister of a deceased victim of a motor accident. The father was aged about 48 and the mother was aged 39 at the time of accident. The offending vehicle was a bus, belonging to the respondent No. 2. The deceased was aged about 13 and was studying in the 8th standard. While walking home after school hours, the bus had run over the boy and he died of the injuries. The appellants claimed a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity). To establish that the child was bright and healthy and was doing well in his studies, certificates issued by the school as regards his grades, extra-curricular and sports activities were produced.(b) The Tribunal has, upon adjudication, proceeded to award a global compen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »