Karnataka Court August 2008 Judgments

Parvatagouda Ninganagouda Patil and ors. Vs. Guddappa and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ547

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-10-2002 passed in O.S. No. 175 of 1998 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad, whereunder the suit filed by respondent 1 came to be decreed for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 1-5-1995 said to have been executed by the defendants therein.2. The appellants are the defendants 1, 2(a), 2(b), 4(a) to 4(d), 5 to 17 and 18(a) to 18(c). Respondent 1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent 2 is defendant 3.3. The parties herein will be referred to with respect to their ranking in the Court below.The plaintiff filed the suit seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 1-5-1995 said to have been executed by the defendants and for a direction to the defendants to execute regular sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs and also to handover actual physical possession of the su...

M. Krishna Swamy S/O Late D.M. Muniyappa and ors. Vs. Smt. Byramma W/O ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioners are persons who are very keen that the revenue entries in respect of the following extents of lands in different survey numbers of Sompura village, Nelamangala taluk:All the piece and parcel of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 54/1 .... 0.27 Qun1as73 .... 623 Guntas84 .... 6.00 Acres86 .... 7.22 Guntas87/1 .... 5.03 Guntas87/2 .... 1.28 Guotasand further following extents of land in different survey numbers of Chandanahosahalli, Sompura hobli, Nelamangala taluk:All the piece and parcel of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 42/1 .... 4.00 Acres42/2 .... 3.12 Guntas43/1 .... 3.01 Guntas43/2 .... 2.14 Gun1as46/1 .... 2.08 Guntasshould remain in their names, but it has been changed in favour of respondents 6, 8 and 9 in terms of two orders passed by the tahsildar, being given effect to MR No. 47/2004 dated 24-3-2005 of Sompur village [copy at Annexure-Y to the writ Petition and MR No. 20/2004 dated 24-3-2005 of Chandanahosahalli village, [co...

B.S. Gopal. Vs. M. Krishna Murthy.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(2)KCCR1138

C.R. Kumaraswamy, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Counsel for the appellant praying to set aside the order dated 10.10.2002 passed by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in Criminal Case No. 14277 of 1998, acquitting the respondent accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant in the trial Court are as follows:The complainant and the accused were known to each other and they were friends for the past several years. On 5.2.1997 the accused approached the complainant and borrowed a loan of Rs.50,000/- to meet his urgent family needs. On the same day, the accused executed an on demand promissory note and consideration receipt in favour of the complainant. The complainant approached the accused several times seeking to repay the loan amount. But the accused evaded the same on one pretext or the other. On 14.4.1997 ...

Smt. Devakiammal Vs. Sri Natarajan

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR5185; 2009(2)KCCR1037; 2009(1)AIRKarR121

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This Revision is directed against the order in H.R.C. No. 254/2004 dated 5th January 2006 on the file of II Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.2. Petitioner had filed a petition under Section 27 Sub-section (2) Clauses (j) and (r) and Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming that, she is a landlord of non-residential premises measuring 8.5 feet x 6.5 feet and alleged that, the husband of the petitioner had taken the said premises on lease from the lessor with a consent to sublet. The respondent is sub-lessee under the petitioner on monthly rent of Rs. 400/-, Petitioner sought for eviction of the respondent on the ground that, her son is running a hotel in the adjacent portion and he requires the premises for expansion of his business and he is facing inconvenience in doing the business on account of lack of adequate space. Though the petitioner approached respondent for several times for vacating the premi...

Banashankari Medical and Oncology Research Centre Ltd. Vs. Joint Commi ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]316ITR407(KAR); [2009]316ITR407(Karn)

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the assessee challenging the divergent findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in I.T.A. No. 458/Bang/ 2000 dated October 29, 2001, raising the following substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment to the Bangalore Cancer Research Foundation of Rs. 3 lakhs in the year of account was for purchase of the equipment and not for the user of the same?2. The facts of this case are as hereunder:3. The appellant-assessee has taken certain equipments on lease for which a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 is paid as deposit and it is also paying rentals payable to the owner of the equipments. The Assessing Officer considering the amount of Rs. 10,00,000 paid as deposit and the rentals paid by the assessee is in the nature of acquiring the capital, did not allow the deduction under the head 'revenue expenditure'...

The Management of Sri Amruthashri Vidya SamsThe and anr. Vs. Sri R. Na ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR4678

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed in W.P. No. 48123/2004 (S-RES), the appellants have preferred the above writ appeal.2. The first respondent was appointed as teacher on 1.6.1986 in the first appellant-institution and the same was approved by the Government Authority on a condition that he should undergo two years teachers' training course. In the meantime, the first appellant, based on the alleged voluntary resignation letter said to have been offered by the first respondent-teacher on 10.6.1996, removed him from service, necessitating the first respondent to approach the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Tumkur, constituted for the purpose of disposing of the appeals filed under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The Tribunal found that the management has not complied with Sections 93 and 97 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and Rule 9 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978 and therefore, it allowed the...

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs. Nagaraj K.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ462; 2008(4)KCCR2461

K. Ramanna, J.1. Both the appeals arise out of the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the 18th Additional CMM and 20th Additional Small Causes Judge at Bangalore City in C.C. Nos. 18849 and 18850 of 2003 challenging the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, acquitting the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Since the respondent in both the appeals are one and same, both the appeals are taken up together, heard and being disposed of by this common judgment. In order to avoid repetition of facts in law.2. It is the case of the appellant in Cri. A. No. 9 of 2006 that the respondent is acquainted with her and requested for a hand loan of Rs. 1,10,000/- to improve his travel business, as he was already running a maxi cab, a passenger carrier. Therefore, the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- from the appellant on 20th December, 2002 and agreed to repay the same with interest at 12% p.a. He further agreed to...

Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Asea Brown Boveri Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]316ITR450(KAR); [2009]316ITR450(Karn)

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the current findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, dated April 27, 2004, in I.T.A. No. 6613/ MUM/97 raising the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that donation made by the assessee to hospital prior to its being declared as eligible under a notification as per Section 35AC of the Act will also be entitled to claim the deduction as the notification would not only act prospectively but also retrospectively?(2) Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that a provision for premium on redemption of debentures of Rs. 4,82,143 is an allowable deduction by following the view expressed, in the earlier years which has not been accepted and appeal are pending and that of the apex court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation. Ltd. v. CIT : [1997] 225 ITR 802 which is not applicable to t...

Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Valerian Pinto

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]316ITR389(KAR); [2009]316ITR389(Karn)

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in I.T.A. No. 48/Bang/03, dated April 8, 2004.2. Though several questions are raised by the appellant in the appeal memo during the course of arguments, it is brought to our notice that the question of law framed in the appeal memo required to be retrained. Accordingly, we reframe the question of law as hereunder:(1) Whether the appellant is entitled to deduction towards the expenses stated to have been incurred by the assessee for enabling the police and excise authorities to conduct raid for the benefit of the assessee in view of Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act3. We have heard counsel for the parties.4. It is not in dispute that the assessee was an excise contractor for three taluks. In the returns filed by him, certain expenditure was shown stating that the said amount was spent by the assessee for the purpose of conducting a raid ...

Hennur-banaswadi Cosmopolitan Club and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. the Commissi ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(5)KCCRSN654; 2009(1)AIRKarR190; AIR2009NOC807

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioners are all institutions known as 'clubs' and are societies registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (Karnataka Act No. 17 of 1960].2. Petitioner-institutions claim to provide various facilities to its registered members, their families and guests of the members. The object of one of the petitioners - Chikmagalur Club as averred in WP No. 7017 of 2006 and prominent amongst them as mentioned in the said petition are as under:OBJECTSThe Chikmagalur Club is constituted for the purpose of unproved Social, Cultural and Physical condition of the people of Chikmagalur, in particular and the District in general by:a) Affording facilities for the free and unrestricted association of respectable persons of all casts, creeds and professions.b) Opening Libraries, Reading Rooms and arranging for cultural programmes and lectures of non-political character.c) Arranging for indoor and outdoor games and tournaments.Al...