Karnataka Court September 2008 Judgments
Smt. K. Swarnalatha W/O V. Krishnaswamy Vs. the Karnataka State Indust ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ473:2009(1)AIRKarR17:AIR2009Kar16
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person who had acted as surety in respect of a loan borrowed by an industrial concern from the first respondent-Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Ltd. The property bearing old No. 19, Old House List No. 15, new khata No. 57, New House List No. 19, situated at Raghuvanahalli, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore south taluk, belonging to the petitioner, which according to the first respondent-corporation, was a collateral security for repayment of the loan borrowed by M/s Techsmart Astenizer Pvt Ltd., had been proposed for sale by the corporation in exercise of its power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 [for short, the Act] by issuing a paper publication to this effect carried out in the Deccan Herald and the Economic Times, news dailies on 29-7-2004 [copy at Annexure-R-9 to the writ petition.2. It is the version of the petitioner that the procedure followed by the first respondent-c...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Parvathamma W/O K. Narayanappa and Smt. Venkatamma W/O K. Ramaiah ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ729; 2009(2)KCCRSN43; 2009(2)AIRKarR194; AIR2009NOC1309
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioners have suffered orders at the hands of Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner. The sufferance is in view of respondents 3 and 4 making an application under the PTCL Act for resumption and restoration of the land in question. The Assistant Commissioner has accepted the application which has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner.2. The undisputed facts are that the land was granted in favour of the respondents on 01.08.1963 and the saguvali chit was issued on 24.02.1964. The sale took place on 21.02.1989 and respondents 3 and 4 filed an application on 03.04.1997 for resumption. Indeed. the only argument of Mr. Sanjay Gowda learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that Section 4(2) of the Act requires to be read down, inasmuch as, from the date of grant, 15 years had already elapsed and the non-alienation clause had rendered itself otiose. Hence, the petitioner having purchased it in the year 1989, the sale is not hit b...
Tag this Judgment!The Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Kar)526
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal is filed by the assessee being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'A' in ITA No. 1460/Bang/2003, dt. 9th Nov., 2004 wherein the Tribunal by allowing the appeal of the Revenue has held that income received by the assessee from investment in security and bank deposits would not qualify for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and accordingly, has set aside the order passed by the first appellate authority - CIT(A), Hubli, dt. 26th Sept., 2003 and restored the order passed by the AO.2. The essential facts of this case leading up to the filing of this appeal are as follows:The assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The assessee filed returns for the asst. yrs. 1991-92 to 1999-2000. The return of the income for the asst. yr. 1991-92 was filed on 27th Sept., 1991 disclosing the income of Rs. 1,25,94,454 under the head 'Income from...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Abraham Phillip Parsha (Since D ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ79
K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the insurer under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the legality and correctness of judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-1, Hubli, in No. WCA/F. 117/1997, dated 30-11-2004.2. The brief facts of the case is that initially deceased Abraham Philip Parsha filed claim petition before the W.C. Commissioner, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him during the course and out of employment. During the pendency of said claim petition Abraham Philip Parsha died and hence his L.Rs came on record. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was working as a cleaner under respondent 4 in the lorry/truck bearing No. MEW 4536, respondents 2 and 3 has taken some contract work of construction of bridge to river and therefore hired the vehicle in question. That on 19-2-1996 at about 5.30 p.m. during the course of employment while unloading the materials like cement,...
Tag this Judgment!H.R. Halappa and ors. Vs. H. Devaraju
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR5175; 2009(2)KarLJ232; 2008(4)KCCR2806
V. Jagannathan, J.1. In order to attract the provisions of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), should the activity of money lending be carried on as a 'profession' or is it sufficient that the activity falls under the expression 'business' is the point that arises for consideration in this second appeal.2. Briefly stated the facts are, the plaintiff, whose legal representatives are the appellants herein, filed the suit against the respondent-defendant for recovery of money based on a promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant and the amount borrowed by the defendant is Rs. 20,000/- and it was to be repaid with 2% monthly interest. The defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff on 10.1.1990 but, did not pay the amount back with interest and hence, the suit by the plaintiff.3. The defendant contested the said suit by taking up the stand that the promissory note in question is inadmissible in view of the material alterations and insufficient...
Tag this Judgment!Sri T.V. Rajakumar Gowda S/O Late E.V.N. Gowda Proprietor of R.R. Cate ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ388; 2009(1)AIRKarR495; AIR2009NOC1069
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner in this petition has sought for setting aside the order dated 25th April 2008 vide Annexure E as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the second respondent to award the contract in favour of petitioner.2. Facts in brief is that, the second respondent -Director of Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore has issued the Tender Notification dated 27th June 2007 to run a canteen in the second respondent -Hospital premises. The petitioner and the third respondent submitted their tender applications along with the respective quotations. The second respondent did not consider the case of the petitioner and his offer was rejected, in spite of quoting lower price in respect of 23 different items of food for the attendants and patients, who are admitted for treatment of their respective diseases. It is the case of petitioner that, even though, the third respondent has offered higher price in respe...
Tag this Judgment!The Employees State Insurance Corporation Rep. by Regional Director, E ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AIRKarR168; 2009(2)KLJ346; [2009(121)FLR475]; ILR2009KAR1194; 2009(2)KarLJ346; (2009)IIILLJ575Kant
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 82(2) of the Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the ESI Act') by the ESI Corporation against the order dated 4.9.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour cum ESI Court, Mangalore in ESI Application No. 7/2003 allowing the said application filed by the respondent herein under Section 75(1)(g) of the ESI Act and declaring that the provisions of ESI Act are not applicable to the establishment of the respondent herein and therefore the respondent herein is not liable to pay the demands made by the Corporation in its various demand notices.2. The respondent herein is Anantha Padmanabha Mills, Kulshekar, Mangalore, a Partnership firm. It is undisputed fact that on 12.1.1996 the Inspector attached to the ESI Corporation in exercise of his powers under Section 45 of the ESI Act inspected the respondent-establishment. According to the Inspector, at the time of inspection, he found 10 persons working in the establish...
Tag this Judgment!Jayamma W/O Ramaiah Reddy Vs. the Assistant Revenue Officer, Hombegowd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR458; 2009(3)KarLJ630; 2009(1)AIRKarR296; AIR2009NOC1036
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The residential property bearing No. 30/1 formerly bearing No. 17/6-30, Bannerghatta Road, 36th Division (Chinnaianapalya), Bangalore, was conveyed in favour of the petitioner under a Deed of sale dated 6-2-1974 Annexure-'A' and a Rectification Deed dated 18-07-1974 Annexure-'B', consequent upon which, a katha certificate Annexure-'C', was issued by the respondent - Corporation of the City of Bangalore recording the name of the petitioner in its records as being primarily responsible to pay the taxes. The petitioner having paid Corporation taxes for the years 2000-01 and 2001-02, when offered to pay taxes for the year 2003-04 and 2004-05, the 4th respondent City Corporation refused to receive the tax on the premise that the katha of the property was not in her name, which prompted the petitioner to address a petition dated 20-08-2004 Annexure-'E' to the 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner (South), Corporation of City of Bangalore, to investigate into the mat...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Bhat S/O Padmanabha Bhat (Since Deceased by Lrs. and ors.) and Sm ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR756:2009(2)KCCR1083:2009(1)AIRKarR380
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. The appellants were the defendants 1 and 2 in the Trial Court and respondents 1 and 2 in the first appellate Court. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were the plaintiffs in the Trial Court and appellants in the first appellate Court. 3rd respondent herein was defendant 3 in the Trial Court and respondent 3 in the first appellate Court. This second appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.7.2003 passed in R.A. 23/2001 by the Principal District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and modifying the judgment and decree dated 16.9.1988 passed In O.S. 23/1982 by the Civil Judge, Puttur. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this judgment will also be referred by their status in the suit/Trial Court.2. Facts In a nutshell are as follows:The case of the plaintiffs is that, they and the 3rd defendant are members of an undivided Hindu family, which owned immovable properties detailed in schedule ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Munirathnamma W/O. Late Ashwathappa Vs. K.G. Venkateshwarulu S/O. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1628; ILR2009KAR151; 2009(5)KarLJ190:2008(5)KCCR3400:2009(1)AIRKarR364:AIR2009NOC613.
Subhash B. Adi, J.1. This is an appeal by the claimant for enhancement of compensation.2. Claimant is mother of the deceased. The deceased was travelling in a tempo, when the said tempo reached Ammavarapalli, a lorry bearing No. AAA-8795 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the tempo. Due to the said impact, the claimant's son sustained grievous injury and was taken to the Government Hospital at Penugonda and from there he was shifted to Nimhans, there he was inpatient from 17.9.2000 to 21.9.2000 and on 21.9.2000 he succumbed to the injury.3. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 23 years and was earning Rs. 3,500/- per month. The Tribunal considering the evidence found that, the income of the deceased could be at Rs. 3,000/-, however, deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses calculated the loss of dependency.4. The only contention urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that, the deduction of 50% is unreasonable. Though the deceased was b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »