Karnataka Court January 2009 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Wipro Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-2009
Reported in: [2009]319ITR289(KAR); [2009]319ITR289(Karn)
Deepak Verma, J.1. Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants. Kum. Saina Mary Thomas, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order dated July 31, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal I. T. A. No. 294/Bang/01 for the assessment year 1997-98.3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration of this Court:Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee-company was not liable to deduct TDS under Section 192 of the Act over the issue of its shares under stock option plan to its employees at a concessional rate as it cannot be treated as a perquisite (salary) and, therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as a defaulter under Section 201(1) of the Act and consequently no interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act can be levied.Whether the Tribun...
B.C. Reddy and ors. Vs. the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Socie ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ561
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioners in this petition have sought for quashing the order dated 12th January, 2007 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore in Appeal No. 588 of 1999 vide Annexure-E.2. The deceased Sri M.G. Jagadish represented by his legal representatives in this petition as respondents 3 to 5 herein had filed the Appeal No. 588 of 1999 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay and assailed the order passed by first respondent dated 27th July, 1999 passed on application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in Dispute No. D.D.S./D.2/1106/1997-98 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the Appellate Tribunal on 12th January, 2007 and the Tribunal, after hearing both parties and after considering the material available on records, following the judgment of the Apex Cou...
Chethana Kumble W/O Anil Kumble Vs. Kumar Jhagirdar S/O M.N. Venkatasu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: ILR2009KAR1409; 2009(3)KarLJ649; 2009(3)KLJ649; 2009(3)AIRKarR455; AIR2009NOC1894.
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The rejection of the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 CPC by Order dt. 11.11.2007 in M.C No. 1195/98 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, lias resulted in this petition invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The threshold contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent over the maintainability' of the writ petition deserves to be rejected, since the petitioner can invoke the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, calling in question the order impugned of the Family Court.3. Briefly stated facts are that a female child by name Kum. Aaruni was born on 7.12.1994 to the petitioner from out of the wedlock between the parties and on 11.12.1998, a joint petition filed invoking Section 13B of The Hindu Marriage act 1955, for short 'Act' for a decree of divorce by mutual consent and child's custody in terms of the compromise, was accordingly allowed by order dtd. 12.04.1999 of the ...
Sri S. Venkata Reddy S/O Sreeram Reddy Vs. Sri Mulabagalappa S/O Chann ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: ILR2009KAR1442; 2009(3)KarLJ294; 2009(2)KCCR1195; 2009(4)AIRKarR136; AIR2009Kar2394
Arali Nagaraj, J.1. The appellant herein viz., S. Venkata Reddy, who is plaintiff in O.S. No. 124/1993 and defendant in O.S. No. 127/1993 both on the file of the learned Munsiff at Srinivasapur District Kolar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short) has challenged the correctness of the common judgment and decree dated 3.8.2002 passed in R.A. No. 176 and 178/1997 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Kolar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Court' for short) insofar as it relates to the dismissal of O.S. No. 124/1993 that was filed by the appellant herein.2. Stated in brief the facts leading to this appeal are as under:(a) The appellant Venkata Reddy filed his O.S. No. 124/1993 against the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein seeking the relief of permanent injunction against them restraining them from interfering with taking of the yield of fruits from mango trees grown in the land bearing Sy. No. 9/1, measuring 4 acres situate at Gollagunta Village of R...
The Director of Municipal Administration Directorate of Municipal Admi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)KarLJ245:2009(2)KCCR1147:2009(3)AIRKarR333(D.B):ILR2009(2)Kar1462
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 14,06,2006 made in Writ Petition No. 32634 of 2003 at the instance of the State.2. The admitted facts of the case are that the respondent writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 32634 of 2003 when he was 19 years old and studying second year B.Com. his father who was working as a Junior Health Inspector died in harness. Hence lie applied for compassionate appointment and that apart the respondent-writ petitioner was also a physically challenged person. Despite he applied on 13.06.1990 for the post of Second Division Assistant, the respondents had not considered his application immediately thereafter. In the meanwhile, he completed his degree and graduated in April 1992 and became qualified for the post of First Division Assistant But on 21.07.1992 the respondent without taking into consideration the degree qualification appointed him only as a Second Division Assistant, which necessitated the writ petitioner of course a...
The Director of Municipal Administration and ors. Vs. H.N. Guruprasad ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: ILR2009KAR1462
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 14.06.2006 made in Writ Petition No. 32634 of 2003 at the instance of the State.2. The admitted facts of the case are that the respondent writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 32634 of 2003 when he was 19 years old and studying second year B.Com., his father who was working as a Junior Health Inspector died in harness. Hence he applied for compassionate appointment and that apart the respondent-writ petitioner was also a physically challenged person. Despite he applied on 13.06.1990 for the post of Second Division Assistant, the respondents had not considered his application immediately thereafter. In the meanwhile, he completed his degree and graduated in April 1992 and became qualified for the post of First Division Assistant. But on 21.07.1992 the respondent without taking into consideration the degree qualification appointed him only as a Second Division Assistant, which necessitated the writ petitioner of course ...
In Re: Advanced Medical Optics India P. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: [2009]150CompCas230(Kar); [2010]97SCL160(Kar)
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The petition is filed for confirmation of the reduction of paid-up equity share capital and securities premium account, as resolved by the petitioner-company by the special resolution dated December 4, 2008.2. The petitioner-company was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short) on June 29, 2004, with the Registrar of Companies in Karnataka. It has the registered office at No. 51, Bangalore Stock Exchange, Annexure 2, J.C. Road, First Cross, Bangalore-560027. The main objects of the company as set out in the memorandum of association are as follows:To manufacture, produce, formulate, prepare, buy, distribute, exchange, supply, sell, market, import, export and deal in ophthalmic products of every kind and description, their ingredients, parts, components, compounds, by products or derivatives or interrelated chemicals or other fine chemicals, medical devices, and all types of human, pharmaceutical, medical, propriety and...
In Re: Indo NissIn Foods Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: [2009]150CompCas275(Kar); [2010]97SCL132(Kar)
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The petitioner-company was incorporated on August 9, 1988, under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, as a company limited by shares. The registered office of the petitioner-company is situated at Centenary Building, Third Floor, 28, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bangalore-560 001.2. The main objects of the petitioner-company are to manufacture, produce, process, prepare, preserve, refine, can, bottle, buy, sell and deal, whether as wholesalers or retailers or as exporters or as principals or agents, in all kinds of food articles including instant foods, spices and condiments, to buy, sell and deal whether as wholesalers or retailers or as exporters or importers or as principals or agents, in packaging materials and containers of every description suitable for human consumption, etc.3. The memorandum of association is produced at annexure B to the petition.4. The authorised share capital of the petitioner-company is Rs. 75,00,00,000 divided into 7,50,00,000 equi...
Step-In Forum and anr. Vs. the Registrar of Societies and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ215
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition, the order dated 17-1-2007 at Annexure-S passed by the first respondent dropping the entire proceedings on the ground that it is not necessary.2. The case of the first petitioner is that it commenced it's activities as an Association of persons for promoting software related test experiences under the name of 'STeP-In Forum' on a non-profit basis. One Arunkumar Khannur was also one of the initial member of the said Association. He resigned from the membership of the Association on 23-11-2005. He, along with others, registered the second respondent as a society under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, using the petitioner's name. On coming to know of such mischievous Act, on 21-4-2006 petitioner made a representation to the first respondent to cancel the second respondent's registration. On 29-5-2006 the petitioner has incorporated a company under the provisions of Indian Companies Act...
G. Basavaraju Vs. Smt. Arundathi and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2009
Reported in: ILR2009KAR1053; 2009(2)KarLJ465; ILR2009(1)Kar1053; 2009(4)KCCR2723; 2009(2)KLJ465; 2009(2)AIRKarR549; 2009CriLJNOC613
ORDER1. This contempt petition has been filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ('the Act' for short), to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused for non-implementation of an order dated 5-12-2007 passed by Karnataka Information Commission ('Commission' for short) in case No. KIC/2860/Com/2007 and to direct the accused, to implement the said order.2. To appreciate the grievance raised in this petition, few relevant facts may be noted:Complainant was a member of Ananda Co-operative Bank Limited, Basaveshwaranagar, Havanur Circle, Bangalore-79. Accused are the President and Secretary of the said Bank. Complainant had filed an application dated 17-7-2007 to the second accused under Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 CRTI Act' for short) requesting to furnish, a copy of the letter dated 23-12-2006 addressed to the Bangalore Water Supply and Sanitary Board and copies of documents such as, T.A., D.A. and log book extract a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »