Karnataka Court August 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. L.R. Subramanya Swamy

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]314ITR125(KAR); [2009]314ITR125(Karn)

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the concurrent findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 314/Bang/99 dated July 8, 2003, along with cross-objection No. 27/Bang/99 filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1995-96.2. The facts of this case are as hereunder:3. The assessee filed a return of income on October 31, 1995, declaring the income of Rs. 950. The matter was taken up for scrutiny assessment in regard to the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that the circular of the Board bearing No. 729, dated November 1, 1995 ([1995] 216 ITR 141), is prospective and it is not retrospective in operation and further held that the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption under Section 80HHC of the Act. Accordingly, the order of assessment was passed on March 24, 1997.4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner...

Arjun Baljee Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Represented by Its C ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR4690; 2008(4)KCCR2752(DB).

V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Since the facts are similar and the matters pertain to cancellation of sites allotted to brothers of the same family and common question of law is involved, both these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. There is delay of 289 days in filing W.A. No. 1435/2007 and for condonation of the same, I.A.I/2007 is filed, In paragraph 3 of the application reasons are mentioned for the delay caused in filing this Appeal. It is stated that the BDA came to know about the site got allotted by the other brother also and the same was cancelled. Challenging the cancellation, the other allottee filed Writ Petition No. 2113/2005 which was dismissed on 31/7/2007 by imposing exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Aggrieved by the same the first appeal in W.A. No. 1797/2007 is filed. Therefore, a decision was taken to file appeal against order of the learned single Judge who quashed the cancellation of allotment, with a view to have consistency in the stand o...

Devraj and ors. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Sub-division a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ318

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners, assailing the correctness of the order dated 26-6-2008 in proceeding Nos. LRF(T):JVL:12:99-01; LRF(T):JVL:14: 99-01; LRF(T):JVL: 11:99-01 and LRF(T):JVL:15:99-01 passed by the first respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Sub-Division, Shimoga vide Annexures-E, F, G and H respectively and the order dated 20th March, 2008 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal Nos. 696 to 699 of 2003 vide Annexure-J, have presented this writ petition. Further, petitioners have sought to direct the first respondent to grant occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners pursuant to their applications filed under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, vide Annexure-A, B, C and D.2. The brief facts of the case are that: these petitioners claiming that they are cultivating the land bearing No. 91 situated at Javalli Village, Shimoga Taluk to the respective extents as notified in their respective applications filed in Form VII-A...

Prakrith Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2009)19VST589(Karn); 2009(3)KCCRSN165

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar J.1. Writ petitioner is a private limited company having its registered office in the first floor of R. K. Commercial Complex, Behind Ramamurthy nagar Police Station, Banaswadi Village Panchayat, Bangalore 560 016 and claims to have been engaged in construction of residential apartments on its own lands and sale of the same on and after construction.2. It is the version of the petitioner that the petitioner had started its business of construction and sale of flats in the year 2001-02 and the said business had been carried on up to March 31, 2005.3. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence-I), South Zone, Bangalore 560 020 had issued notice to the petitioner under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') and had finalised the same for the years 2001-02 to 2004-05 in terms of the order dated November 29, 2006 and followed it up with demand notice for payment of the amount determined under the ord...

M. Sarvar Khan S/O. Mohammed Khan and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka by S ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR365

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The appellants are the writ petitioners in W.P. 10647/06 where in by proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 12-7-06 the representation for sale of the quarters under their occupation was rejected and a direction given to vacate the respective quarters within 15 days from 12-7-06, was confirmed by an order of the learned Single Judge dated 31st June, 2008.2. In brief, the petitioners are the retired Group-D employees of Public Works Department and they were allotted individual quarters for their occupation during their service, but even after superannuation they continued in occupation of the respective quarters and represented to the Government to convey the respective quarters on lease-cum-sale basis. Since the Government proposed to evict the petitioners from the respective quarters in July 1997, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P. Nos. 24482-86/1997 and 20499/1997 and this Court by an order dated 22nd July, 1999 in W.P. No. 20499/97 directed the ...

M.G. Siddaveerappa Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ458; AIR2009NOC113; 2008(6)AIRKarR277

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person, who was an aspirant seeking to be elected as an office-bearer to the Managing Committee of sixth respondent-Cooperative Bank.2. It appears, on 28-9-2007, the Returning Officer had declared the third respondent to this writ petition as elected unopposed on the premises that the petitioner had withdrawn his nomination. The petitioner contested this position claiming that he had not withdrawn from the contest and even sought for furnishing of a copy of the letter of withdrawal etc., but as the Returning Officer having issued an endorsement at Annexure-C indicating that it is not available in the record etc., the petitioner wanted to raise a dispute and filed an election petition before the Registrar on 29-10-2007.3. The dispute raised by the petitioner on 29-10-2007 having been referred to the Deputy Registrar by the Joint Registrar for adjudication and the same having been numbered as GRB/Dispute 42/07-08, the Deputy Registrar, i...

Sarathy Teachers Training College Managed by Premier Educational Trust ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. These two petitions have been filed by the respective institutions running D.Ed. colleges in Tamil Medium. Petitioners are questioning the legality and validity of the decision taken by the 1st respondent State that from the academic year 2006-07, the D.Ed., institutions shall not impart education in tamil medium though NCTE hat granted recognition as contained in their decision dated 9.10.2007.2. According to the petitioners, the State Government after considering all aspects, passed an order on 29.12.2005 granting NOC to establish D.Ed. colleges with tamil as medium of instruction. Since there was a necessity of recognition by the NCTE, on the application tiled by the petitioners, the NCTE, granted recognition for the academic year 2006-07 onwards by its order dated 12.5.2007. As such, petitioner institutions are running D.Ed. colleges in tamil medium and have also completed the course for the academic year 2006-07. However, mere was a decision taken by ...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Calicut Branch Through Its Regional Of ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR2362:2009(3)KCCR2223:2009(6)AIRKarR238(D.B).

Arali Nagaraj, J.1. Both M.F.A. Nos. 667/05 & 668/05 and also MFA. CROB. No. 199/05 have arisen from the same common judgment and respective awards dated 2.11.2004 passed in M.V.C. Nos. 407 and 517 of 2003 by the learned District Judge & MACT, Udupi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short). M.F.A. Nos. 667 and 668 of 2005 are filed by the Insurer and MFA.CROB. 199/05 is filed by the claimant in M.V.C. No. 407/03 who is respondent in M.F.A. 667/05.2. We have heard the arguments of Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned Counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Sri Kishore Shetty, learned Counsel for the respondent-cross-objector - claimant. Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, strongly contended that both the injured claimants in the said cases were travelling as gratuitous passengers in the tempo bearing registration No. KL-11/H-1643 and therefore the Tribunal committed a serious error in fastening the liability on this insurer to pay the compensation to the claimants in the said c...

K.L. Shivananjamurthy. Vs. K.L. Nagaraj Alias K. Karehalli and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR4537; 2009(6)KantLJ174; 2009(6)KarLJ174

(This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 5.9.2006 passed by the XXII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore city in O.S.No.4460/95 on IA.No.V Vide ANN-A).1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 5.9.2006 passed on I.A.V in O.S.No.4450/95 on the file of the XXII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, vide Annexure-A, presented the instant writ petition.2. The second defendant in the above suit, respondent herein, has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking transposition of himself as plaintiff. The said application had come for consideration before the court below on 5.9.2006. The court after hearing both the sides and after considering the relevant material available on file, especially taking into consideration that the suit has been filed in the year 1995, the petitioner-plaintiff has not participated effectively for the due prosecution of the suit and taking into c...

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Vijay Kumar and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009ACJ2167; ILR2008KAR4832; 2009(2)KCCR1048; ILR2008(4)Kar4832

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. In both these cases, the Insurance Company is challenging their liability to satisfy the award passed by the MACT in MVC 683 and 684/04.2. The facts in brief are as under:Petitioner Prabhakar in MVC 683/04 is the father and Vijay Kumar in MVC 684/04 is the son of the said Prabhakar. Father and son were proceeding in a moped bearing No. KA-05-EM-2204 near Hosakerehalli. An auto rickshaw bearing No. KA-05-A-7676 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner at about 7.30 pm on 25.12.2003 near Vinayaka Hospital, 80 feet ring road, Bangalore came from the opposite direction and dashed against the moped. Both the father and son sustained severe grievous injuries. Prabhakar sustained commuted fracture of upper l/3rd right tibia with displacement and his son Vijay Kumar sustained simple injury in the accident. They were treated at Vinayaka Hospital. They claim that they have spent Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively for treatment. They preferred a claim petition s...