Karnataka Court November 2009 Judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Vs. Itc Hotels Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The Revenue has come up in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in ITA No. 53/Bang/1997 dated 19. 11.2003.2. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:1) Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that expenses incurred by the asssessee for issue of convertible debentures relating to part-B of the debenture as adverted to in the course of its order that as debentures get converted into shares after 18 months only the same should foe treated as a revenue expense and not as a capital expense during the current assessment year.3. The assessee fixed its return for the assessment year 1393-94. During the course of scrutiny, the Assessing officer noticed that the assessee had claimed debenture issue expenditure of Rs. 21,35,500/-. The said claim was disallowed by the Assessing officer by his order dt.8.2.1996. Aggrie...

Srinandan Singhal and Deepak Singhal S/O Ramtilak Vs. Sri. Kunj Bihari ...

Court: Karnataka

Subhash B. Adi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Prl. city civil and sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 3539/2008 dated 4.6.2008.2. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants herein. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 9 from interfering with the business of the plaintiffs in any manner. Plaintiffs also filed an application Under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC interalia seeking ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the defendants, his agents, from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule premises during the pendancy of the said suit. The said application came up for consideration before the Court on 4.6.2008. The learned trial judge issued an order of status-quo by dispensing notice to the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for granting temporary order of status-quo and ...

Anraj S/O Karamchand Vs. Mahalakshmamma W/O Late Kantharaj,

Court: Karnataka

ORDERA.S. Pachhapure, J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged the Order of the Court below directing him to vacate and handover the possession of the schedule premises to the respondents herein, within 3 months from the date of the Order and also directing to pay arrears of rent from July 2007 till the date of handing over possession of the schedule premises.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this revision are as under:I will be referring the parties as per their rank before the Trial Court for the purpose of convenience.The petitioner and the respondents herein are the respondent and petitioners respectively before the trial Court. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] against the respondent to pass an Order of eviction and to direct him to quit and hand-over vacant possession of the schedule premises and to pay arrears of rent from July 2007. The schedule premises was leased to ...

Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Rajajinagar Branch by Its Assis ...

Court: Karnataka

Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Learned Single Judge having felt that the dictum laid down in the case of Chinnavenkatesh R.T. v. Senior RTO, Mysore and Anr. : 1975 (2) KLJ 385 requires reconsideration, referred these writ petitions to the Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act.2. In the case of Chinnavenkatesh (Supra), learned Single Judge of this Court has ruled that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the appeals filed under Section 15 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'Taxation Act' for short) r/w. Rule 31 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'Taxation Rules' for short).3. Thus, the question to be considered by the Division Bench isWhether Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable for the purpose of condoning the delay in preferring the appeal filed under Section 15 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1957 r/w. Rule 31 of the Karnataka Motor Vehic...

C. Jagadish S/O Late Chandrappa and ors. Vs. Karnataka State Finance C ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This is a story of the suffering of small time borrowers from the KSFC who particularly suffer if they are belonging to the lower strata of the society, and reveals as to what kind of harassment, humiliation and disastrous financial consequences are heaped on them, are all very well demonstrated in the present writ petition.2. A person who had a driving licence with the fond hope of owning a transport vehicle, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 5.66 lakhs from the respondent-Corporation on 20.12.1996 under the self-employment scheme mooted by the Corporation.3. The petitioner-borrower had made an initial investment of Rs. 2,34,000/- for the purchase of chassis of Ashok Leyland Lorry and the balance was funded by the Corporation by funding under the self-employment scheme and it is the version of the petitioner that the petitioner incurred a further expenditure of Rs. 1,53,000/- for building truck body on the chassis and started using vehicle for transport operati...

Mithra Associates Developers, Planters Private Limited and anr. Vs. Po ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ467

ORDERJawad Rahim, J.1. The learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent are present.2. Both sides file an application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, 'the N.I. Act') reporting settlement between the parties and seek permission to compound the offence.3. Considering the nature of proceedings and the terms agreed upon permission is granted. The offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compounded. As envisaged under Sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, it shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused.4. In these terms the revision is disposed of.Date: 1-12-2009...

Jagdish Shastri Vs. Chief Secretary State of Karnataka and

Court: Karnataka

Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. In this public interest litigation, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Government Order No. DPAR 44 Se Ni Si 2008, Bangalore, dated 28.7.2008 vide Annexure-'A', by which the age of retirement of Government employees is increased from 58 to 60 years. According to the petitioner, the State Government without calling for objections from the general public and without issuing the draft rules to the amendment to Karnataka Civil Services Rules for enhancing the age of superannuation and without giving opportunity to the public at large to file objections to the draft rules, has issued the Government Order dated 28.7.2008; that the said rule is brought into effect from 17.7.2008; that it will affect the current economic condition of the State and the prospects of the younger generation of being appointed; and that the younger generation and their parents are put to depression due to unemployment problem and consequently, the impugned Government order is bad ...

Trs Forms and Services (P.) Ltd. Vs. Eduquity Technologies (P.) Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2010]97SCL126(Kar)

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner having raised an invoice Annexure-Dl forRs. 11,07,418.25, on the respondent - a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act') and having its registered office at the address shown in the cause title, after allegedly carried out its contractual obligations, when payment was not forthcoming despite E-mails Annexures-E series, Annexure-F and correspondence Annexures-G, H, J and K, issued a notice dated 17-7-2008 Annexure-P through legal counsel calling upon the respondent to pay Rs. 17,17,968 being the amounts due with interest calculated at the rate of 24 per cent per annum from the date of invoice. That notice when acknowledged was responded by a reply dated 18-8-2008 Annexure-Q, inter alia, contending that, due to the negligence in performance of the contract by the petitioner, the same was set right by the respondent by hiring data entry personnel and deploying software engineers, including transportation of material...

Arun S/O Anthony Swamy and Gunda S/O Mariyappa Vs. State of Karnataka ...

Court: Karnataka

Arali Nagaraj, J.1. This appeal is by accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Sessions Case No. 328/2006 on the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short).2. The appellants have challenged in this appeal the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 16.2.2008 passed in the said case convicting both these appellants - accused for the offence under Section 398 read with Section 511 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo R.I. for a period of three years and six months.3. At the outset, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that accused No. 2 (appellant No. 1) had been in judicial custody from 24.7.2006 and accused No. 3 (appellant No. 2) had been injudicial custody from 31.1.2006 and thus, as on this date, both these appellants - accused have been set at liberty on their completion of the total period imprisonment for three years and six months and as such, the present appeal deser...

N. Swamygowda S/O Nanjegowda Vs. Ramegowda S/O Channegouda,

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KCCR3003

ORDERAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. The petitioner - plaintiff has called into question the order, dated 4.8.2009 (Annexure-F) passed by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Srirangapatna, on I.A. No. XIX in O.S. No. 149/2001.2. In the suit filed by the petitioner for injunction, the respondent No. 3 tiled I.A. No. XIX invoking Order XXVI Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) seeking the appointment of the Taluka Surveyor as the Court Commissioner for ascertaining as to in which Survey Number the suit schedule property is situated. The Trial Court allowed the said I.A.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahanthesh Hosmath submits that the petitioner has produced as many as 74 clinching documents to show that the suit schedule property is formed out of the lands at Sy. No. 291. He submits that even the Gazette Notification has not weighed with the Trial Court. He takes exception to the Trial Court entertaining the application for the appointment of the Court Commissio...