Karnataka Court August 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax (international Taxation) and anr. Vs. Illin ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2010]321ITR49(KAR); [2010]321ITR49(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. 816/Bang/2002 dated August 26, 2003, for the assessment year 2000-01.2. The facts of this case are as hereunder:3. The assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 to impart education. The assessee has entered into an agreement on November 10, 1999 with IITC, which is an educational institution situated at Chicago in order to impart distance education in certain faculties. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, IITC has to impart education on certain faculties under a programme, known as Distance Education Programme for which the assessee-company has to provide infrastructure like collecting the application forms and forward the same to IITC, for the purpose of admission and after approval of admission, to collect the tuition fees and remit the same to IITC, USA and receive the education mat...

B. Raghuram Shetty. Vs. Arun Bhandary and ors.

Court: Karnataka

(This Writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 17.4.2008 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Mangalore in Revision (Rent) Petition No.23/2007 (Annexure A).1. Writ petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the property bearing D.No.3-w-7-618 and 618a and appurtenant lands situated at Kadiri B village coming under the Mangalore City Corporation. It is the version of the petitioner that the property was purchased by the petitioner by means of a registered as document No.405/05-06. It is also averred that the property originally belonged to one Mr.Balappa Shetty and after his death Dr. Sharath Kumar Shetty, Dr.Santosh Kumar Shetty and Smt. Zareena Punja have acquired title over the property and it is the very property, the petitioner claim to have purchased in terms of a sale deed dated 21.4.2005 executed by Dr.Sharath Kumar Shetty, Dr. Santosh Kumar Shetty and Smt. Zareena Punja, and last two of them having...

Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Laxmaw ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ625

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. The National Insurance Company Limited has filed these appeals impugning the common judgment and separate awards passed in M.V.C. Nos. 821 to 828 of 2004, by the learned Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hubli allowing in part, the claim petitions filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') against the appellant and another fixing initial liability on the appellant to pay compensation amount, observing that, it is entitled to recover the excess amount than the permit liability of 12+1, from the owner of the vehicle.2. We have heard Sri Rajashekhar S. Arani, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni and Sri Mahesh Wodeyar, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. Learned Counsel consented for final disposal of the appeals.3. The facts which are not in dispute are that, the appellant had issued the policy of insurance in respect of a Maxi Cab bearing Registration No. KA 2...

M/S. Siddaganga Oil Extractions Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. M/S. Pioneer Fe ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KCCR125; 2009(3)KLJ431; 2008(6)AIRKarR451; AIR2009NOC344

1. This matter came up on 25.07.2008 regarding the office objections about the maintainability of the Miscellaneous First Appeal against the order passed on an application filed under Order 38 Rule 9 CPC. As the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant pleaded urgency and contended that the order impugned was basically an order passed under Order 38 Rule 8 CPC and that as per Order 38 Rule 6 a claim made for the property attached before judgment shall be adjudicated upon in the manner provided for adjudication of the claims of property attached in execution of a decree for payment of money as per Order 21 Rule 58 and that such an adjudication partakes the characteristic of adjudication of the suit and will be appealable as if it is a decree passed, keeping open the point of maintainability emergent notice was issued to the respondents. Pursuant to the notice issued, the 3rd respondent has entered appearance and the matter is listed for consideration regarding maintainability. The 3r...

Siddaganga Oil Extractions Private Limited, Tumkur. Vs. Pioneer Feeds ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KCCR125; 2009(3)KantLJ431; 2009(3)KarLJ431

B.S. Patil, J.1. This matter came up on 25.7.2008 regarding the office objections about the maintainability of the Miscellaneous First Appeal against the order passed on an application filed under Order 38, Rule 9 CPC. As the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant pleaded urgency and contended that the order impugned was basically an order passed under Order 38, Rule 8 CPC and that as per Order 38, Rule 8 a claim made for the property attached before judgment shall be adjudicated upon in the manner provided for adjudication of the claims of property attached in execution of a decree for payment of money as per Order 21, Rule 58 and that such an adjudication partakes the characteristic of adjudication of the suit and will be appealable as if it is a decree passed, keeping open the point of maintainability emergent notice was issued to the respondents. Pursuant to the notice issued, the 3rd respondent has entered appearance and the matter is listed for consideration regarding mainta...