Karnataka Court August 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Rama Engineering Works

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]313ITR312(KAR); [2009]313ITR312(Karn)

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the Revenue, challenging the concurrent finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Commissioner' for short), which has been confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'B', (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), in I. T. A. No. 475/Bang/1999, dated August 27, 2003, for the assessment year 1996-97. The Revenue has presented this appeal raising the following two substantial questions of law:(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate authorities were justified in deleting a sum of Rs. 3,41,659 being the value of the plant and machinery purchased on March 31, 1996, which was in transit and which has not been reflected in the closing stock by the assessee on March 31, 1996 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below were justified in deleting a sum of Rs. 5,65,000 added by the Assessing Officer towards ...

Chandamma and ors. Vs. Smt. Muktabai and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3527

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The 1st respondent filed a suit O.S. No. 16/2006 seeking maintenance from the estate of her deceased husband Hanumanthraya and also seeks creating charge on the suit property. The marriage of 1st respondent with Hanumanthraya is evidently contracted during the subsistence of the valid marriage with the 1st wife who is the appellant No. 1. The Trial Court has granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. and created charge on the suit property which is held to be the estate of deceased Hanumanthraya. Hence, this, appeal by the defendants.2. Sri. Veeresh B. Patil, Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent relied on the ruling of Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Rampratapji daga v. Rameshwari Ramesh Chandra Daga (2005) SCCR 107 and decision of Bombay High Court in Shantaram Tukaram Patil and Anr. v. Smt. Dagubai Tukaram Path and Ors. : AIR 1987 Bombay 182 to contend that even in the case the 2nd marriage is held to be void. The 2nd wife is entitled to get...

Sri Boraiah Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Its Secretary to Gove ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR5102:2009(1)AIRKarR85:AIR2009NOC764

ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing the communication dated 2.6.2006 bearing No. 124/52/CC/32/06 FFW2 at Annexure-A on the file of respondent No. 1 and to extend the benefits of Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980, (in short 'the SSS Pension Scheme') from date of application.The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Writ Petition may be stated as under:2. The petitioner claims that in the year 1942, he participated in Quit India Movement and he was tried and detained in Srirangapatnam Jail from 25.10.1942 to 30.4.1943. Again, in the year 1947, on account of participation in the freedom fight movement, the petitioner was imprisoned from 14.9.1947 to 12.10.1947. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 viz., the State of Karnataka has granted the pension and he has been receiving the same. On 15.5.1984, the 2nd respondent recommended the 1st responde...

Ratna Polypack (India) Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ515; (2009)IIILLJ584Kant; 2009(1)AIRKar453

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. These appeals are directed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 29-10-2007 passed in the Writ Petition Nos. 5810 of 2006 and 35369 of 2003 and other connected matters wherein the appellants have chosen to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 7-Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called 'the Act' in short) and in some of the cases, the orders passed under Sections 7-A, 7-Q and 14-B of the Act. In the said writ petitions, the constitutional validity of Section 7-Q was upheld by this Court and liberty was reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate appeals before the Appropriate Authority in accordance with law insofar as the orders passed by the authorities under Sections 7-A, 7-Q and 14-B of the Act.2. Mr. J.N. Naveen, learned Counsel for the appellants contends that ' in view of Section 14-B of the Act, Section 7-Q, which renders the employers liable to pay simple interest a...

Shamoon Ahmed Saved S/O. Syed Abdul Ala, and anr. Vs. Intelligence Off ...

Court: Karnataka

1. By the impugned order, the Court below has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 231(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C"). By filing the said application, the petitioners had prayed for deferring the cross-examination of PW.1, until the examination-in-chief of CWs. 2 to 5, is recorded.2. Petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 and 4. facing trial in Spl. Case. 152/2004 in the Court of Special Judge for NDPS, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The investigation records disclose that the officials of Narcotic Control Bureau allegedly seized 8 kgs. of heroin, from the premises bearing No. 17/4, Laijinagar, Lakkasandra, Bangalore, under the mahazar dated 30.12.2003. On commencement of the trial, the complainant examined the official witness by name Sri H.Shivakumar, Intelligence Officer of Narcotic Control Bureau, Chennai a...

Papanna Since deceased by his LR's Vs. Smt. Chitra Annaswamy and Ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR4782

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This Revision is directed against the order dated 18.2.1989 in L.R.A. No. 1255/1986 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore in LRF.INA. 1185/79-80 dated 13.11.1986 and for direction to the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore for confirmation of the occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre 6 guntas of land in Sy. No. 47/1 of Kodihalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.2. On 24.12.1974, the deceased petitioner made an application under Section 10 of the Mysore (Personnel and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking for transfer of khata of Sy. No. 47/1 of Kodihalli village from his deceased father's name to his name. In the said proceedings deceased petitioner made an application for impleading one Smt. Chitra Annaswamy, daughter of A.M. Ramamurthy, Jodidar of Kodihalli village.3. The case of the...

Ramaiah S/O Rangappa Vs. State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secreta ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This Revision is directed against the order passed in L.R.-A. No. 120/1987 dated 22.3.1990 reversing the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 9.4.1987 in LRF/INA/222/1979-80 and LRA/INA/29/79-80.2. Petitioner claiming to be an Archaka of Sri Channarayaswamy temple (Muzrai) situated at Chikkabanavara village, Bangalore North Taluk, filed an application under Section 6-A of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). Respondent No. 4 also filed an application under Section 10 of the Act interalia, claiming to be a protected tenant The Land Tribunal considering the application of the petitioner granted occupancy rights by its order dated 9.4.1987, holding that, he is an Archaka and performing pooja and also cultivating the land previously and was dispossessed from the land when the land was put to panchasala auction. The said order was called in question by the respondent No. 4 in appeal before the Dist...

D.S. Patil and anr. Vs. Somashekar D. Patil.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(2)KCCR1324

N. Ananda, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No.793/2004, on the file of XXX Additional City Civil Court at Bangalore, have filed this appeal against the orders passed on IA No.10 dated 19.7.2008.2. There are concluded incidental proceedings between parties to suit in respect of suit 'A' and B' schedule properties. Therefore, in this appeal, parties would be referred to by their names.3. The II-defendant namely Manjunath D.Patil and plaintiff namely Somashekar D.Patil are the sons of I-defendant namely D.S. Patil. Somashekar D.Patil has filed the present suit against D.S. Patil and Manjunath D.Patil for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in suit 'A', B', 'C' and 'D' schedule properties. 'A' schedule property is a residential house situate at No.18, 4th Cross, Central Excise Layout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore. 'B' schedule property is an industrial shed bearing No. 32/25, situate at 2nd Main Road, Industrial Town, Rajajinagar, Bangalore 10, wherein D.S. Patil and Manjunath D...

Rajaram Prasad Gupta and anr. Vs. Ramchandra Prasad and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(10)SCC796

Heard learned counsel for the parties.Leave granted.The Trial Court decreed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Against the said decree, when the appeal was preferred before the High Court, prayer for stay of further proceeding in the execution case was refused.Hence, this appeal by special leaves.Undisputedly, the suit property is a residential house in which the appellants are residing. It is well settled that in cases where the subject of suit is residential premises and the judgment-debtor is residing in it, prayer for stay is ordinarily granted. Of course, for special reasons, it may be refused. In the present case, no special reason has been assigned by the High Court for declining the appellants' prayer for stay. This being the position, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in refusing to grant stay.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order refusing the prayer for stay is set aside and it is directed that, pending disposal o...

K.A. Devaraj Vs. the District Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR5051; 2008(4)KCCR2773(DB)

ORDERA.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. With the consent of both sides, the matter is heard for final disposal.The complainant, as the General Secretary of Bharathiya Majdoor Sangha, had filed writ petition No. 10178/2005 against the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban, Bangalore to recover from the employer, the Management of Dominion Chemical Industries Ltd., Bommanahalli, Bangalore 560 068, the amount of gratuity, as decided by the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in terms of the order dated 28.10.2004. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the submission made by the learned High Court Government Pleader that, the Deputy Commissioner (District Commissioner) would immediately take action in accordance with law, to recover the money from the employer in terms of the order dated 28.10.2004 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the writ petition was allowed in part, by an order dated 23.2.2005 and a direction was issue...