Karnataka Court December 2009 Judgments

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vice President, Ksrtc S ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ461

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the award dated 31-12-2007 in Reference No. 74 of 2006 of the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore Annexure-G, allowing the claim petition filed by the respondent-driver by setting aside the order dated 30-9-1991 of the Disciplinary Authority, imposing the punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect and directing payment of arrears, has presented this petition.2. Facts not in dispute are that the respondent, was driving the bus bearing Registration No. CAF.8917 on Route No. 10/11 from Chikmagalur to Mysore, on 24-5-1991, which when intercepted by the checking squad, it was alleged that the respondent was carrying unauthorisedly, three ticketless passengers in the closed driver's cabin from Hagare to Hassan (Stage No. 25/24 to 21), after collecting the fare of Rs. 4.25/- from each, as disclosed in their statements recorded in the presence of the driver who was made to pay the said fares ...

Sun and Ski Exports Private Limited Vs. P.K. Sujith and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ380

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the short question that arises for decision making is, 'Whether the application filed by the petitioner on 21-10-2008 invoking Rule 11(5) of the Karnataka Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 was barred by limitation?'2. The undisputed facts are that, the order dated 28-7-2008 Annexure-A under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 11 was passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in the absence of the petitioner, and was not communicated to him. However, the petitioner when informed of the said order by the Advocate for the respondent on 13-10-2008 to comply with the order and make payment of Rs. 1,80,770/- as gratuity, led to the petitioner filing an application to set aside the ex parte order Annexure-A.3. According to Sri Kanikaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the crucial date to be taken for computing 30 days from the date of order ought to be the date of communication of the order and ...

R. Ramu Vs. Smt. Leelavathi

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ376

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The matter arises under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the said proceedings, the wife maintains an application seeking maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month and compensation under Section 22 of the Act and for such other reliefs.2. The case of the wife is that she and her husband married on 1-6-1989 as per their customs at Chinthamani. After the marriage, they stayed together for a considerable period of time. During the wedlock two children were born. It appears, the marriage life was a smooth sailing affair for about a couple of years. But however, the husband started ill-treating her and used to come home late. Her main allegation is that he is living with another lady. It is her case that the husband is earning Rs. 50,000/- as Bar bender. In view of the physical violence and mental violence she is taking treatment at a private nursing home and the husband has refused to pay the bills. She would further allege that the husband ...

K. Kumar S/O. A.C. Kannikaraja Vs. Smt. Leena W/O K. Kumar and Reshma ...

Court: Karnataka

A.S. Pachhapure, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant has approached this Court in appeal challenging the judgment and decree of maintenance granted by the Trial Court in favour of the respondents and confirmed in the appeal, by the lower appellate Court.2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:The parties will be referred as per their rank in the Trial Court for the purpose of convenience.The respondents herein were the plaintiffs whereas the appellant is the defendant before the Trial Court. The first plaintiff and the defendant are Christians and were married on 27.4.1977 as per the custom of their community. They led a happy marital life for some time and they have three issues. The Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the son and daughter. Later, there were differences amongst each other. The defendant was addicted to bad habits and developed illicit relationship with other women. He started consuming liquor and was subjecting the first plaintiff to cruelty and harassm...

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Vs. Delphine Alexander

Court: Karnataka

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The revenue has come up in this appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which has been affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 55/Bang/1996 dt.21.2.2003 for the assessment year 1987-88.2. The Appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that no mistake in the order of the Appellate Commissioner was pointed out when it was specific case of the revenue that the Appellate Commissioner had failed to record a finding on the controversies which arose during the current assessment year as it was not identical to the facts prevailing in the earlier assessment year and consequently recorded a perverse finding.2) Whether the Appellate Authorities failed to taken into consideration the controversy arising during the current assessment year regarding the claim of disallowance of loan amount by the assessing officer as the relevant parties...

Smt. Kalavathi S. Nergi Vs. the District Commissioner, District Caste ...

Court: Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the parties.2. The facts leading up to these appeals are as follows:Banajiga Naidu by birth. She married one Shankar Nergi, in the year 1977, who belonged to the Adi Dravida community, which is a Scheduled Caste. It is recognised as such by the State Government of Karnataka. On the basis of her marital states, the appellant claiming to belong to the caste other husband, had sought for a Caste Certificate from the Tahsildar. Udupi and such a certificate dated 30.7.1977 was issued in her favour. She had secured employment on the basis of the said certificate with the New India Assurance Company, represented by the third respondent herein.3. It however, transpires that on the basis of a report submitted by the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell of the office of the District Commissioner. District Caste Verification Committee. Udupi. the said authority had by an order dated 25.8.2003, cancelled the Caste Certificate issued by the Tahsildar. Udupi of t...

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Vs. Karnataka Financial Corporation

Court: Karnataka

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The revenue has come up in this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 5.2.2004 in ITA. No. 716/BANG/2002, in respect of the assessment year 1998-99.2. The Assessee is a State owned Corporation enjoying the status of a Company for the assessment year 1998-99. The assessee declared its total income of Rs. 2,58,41,720/-. The return was taken for scrutiny. The Assessing officer disallowed the claim of Rs. 15 lakhs spent by the assesses under the head 'miscellaneous expenses' which was incurred by the assesses at the instance of the State to promote its business at any village known as 'Model Village' in Mysore district under the AG's Mysore Zilla Panchayath, Swasthi Gram Yojana, Claim was disallowed toy the assessing officer only on the ground that the amount spent by the assessee in a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs is not for its business purpose. Therefore the same was disallowed.3. The assessee aggrieved fey the assessment order, preferred the appe...

Commissioner of Service Tax, Service Tax Commissionerate Vs. Bpl Limit ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2010]20STJ81(Karnataka); 2010[17]STR113; [2010]24STT220

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The Revenue has come up in appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, (CESTAT) dated 22.6.2006 in Appeal No. ST/38/06 and final order No. 1065/2006 raising the following substantial questions of law.1) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT is legal and correct in unconditionally setting aside the demand for service tax, without considering the legal provisions that the service tax is liable to he paid by the respondent as and when the payment for the service provided is received by thorn;ii) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT is legal and correct In holding that suppression of facts did not exist And hence the extended time limit laid down in Section 73 of the Act is not invokable in the case.2. The facts leading to this cause are as hero under:The respondent-assesaee is providing services and registered with the Service Tax Department dated 6.9.2000 under the Finance Act...

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Gokarna Natheswara Trust

Court: Karnataka

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The order of remission passed in ITA 1584/Bang/2002 dated 12.8.2004 is called in question by the Revenue.2. The respondent assesses filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, being aggrieved by the order of rejection to renew recognition granted under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act 1961 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore, dated 1.10.2002. The Tribunal having noticed from the records that the Assessing Officer has failed to consider the relevant material produced before him by the assesses, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore, remanded appropriate order after examining the issue in detail based on the material produced by the respondent-assessee. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the Tribunal were correct in holding that the building of a prayer hall/Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Temple, which was open to the public at la...

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Vs. Karnataka State Constructions C ...

Court: Karnataka

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The revenue has come up in this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in ITA No. 9/Bang/2008 dt.26,9.2008. The questions of law that arises for our consideration in this appeal is:1) Whether an Interim award passed by the Arbitrator against the assessee to pay a sum of Rs. 52.84 lakhs payable to its Sub-Contractor is allowable as deduction during the current assessment year before passing the final award and2) Whether an Interim award of the Arbitrator can be recovered from the Central Government. If it is so whether the said amount can be allowable as a deduction during the current assessment year?2. It is not in dispute that the assessee indulging in the construction activities had obtained contract from the Central Government. The assessee in turn entrusted the work to a Sub-contractor. A dispute arose between the assessee and its Sub-contractor and the matter was referred to an Arbit...