Karnataka Court December 2009 Judgments

Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Ltd., a Company Registered Und ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J.1. This writ petition by M/s. Sovereign Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. arises out of a proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Arbitration Act') in A.A. No. 728/2009 and is directed against an interlocutory order dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure-H) made therein by the Court of the VI Additional City Civil Judge (CCH. 11), Bangalore City, rejecting I.A. No. 4 filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of further proceedings in the aforesaid proceeding in A.A. No. 728/2009. A.A. No. 728/2009 is filed by the respondent - M/s Paramount Vijetha Holding under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for grant of an order of injunction to restrain the petitioner herein from interfering with its putting up of construction on the schedule property.2. The aforesaid I.A. No. 4 was filed by the petitioner for stay of further proceedings in A.A. No. 728/2009 on the ground that an application in A.A. No. 697/2009 fi...

The Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation and Vs. Synopsy ...

Court: Karnataka

Aravind Kumar, J.1. The revenue is in appeal assailing the order of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal passed in ITA No. 290/Bang/3002 dated 6-1-2006.2. At the time of admission of this appeal the following substantial questions of law has been formulated on 7-8-2007 to consider the question of law formulated in I.T.A. No. 265/2006.1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS in respect of payments made for purchase of software as the same cannot, be treated as income liable to tax in India as Royalty or Scientific Work under Section 9 of the Act read with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and treaties.2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that since the assessee had purchased only a right to use the copyright i.e., the software and not the entire copyright itself, the payment cannot be treated as Royalty as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and Treaties which is beneficial to the assessee and consequently Section 9 o...

The Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Gopal ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ271

V. Jagannathan, J.1. This appeal by the Regional Director, ESI Corporation is directed against the order passed by the ESI Court on ESI Application No. 37 of 2005 by which order the application field by the respondent-applicant challenging the order passed by the Corporation under Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 demanding contribution from the respondent was set aside and the application was allowed.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation argued that the coverage that was sought by passing an order dated 31-3-2005 under Section 45-A of the ESI Act was for the period from April 1997 to March 1998 in a sum of Rs. 11,336/- in respect of the security guards who are deputed to work in the establishment of the respondent-applicant. The Court below, without there being any evidence placed in proof of contribution in respect of security guards having already been paid by the employer concerned, allowed the application and as such the impugned order i...

Shantha K. Shetty Vs. M.V. Prathibha and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ316

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Petitioner is the appellant. The claim petition filed by her under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents has been allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs. 40,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition. Dissatisfied with the amount of award, contending that the appreciation of evidence is not correct and that there is no just award passed in her favour, this appeal has been filed.2. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the records. The findings of the Tribunal with regard to the accident in question is not under challenge. The finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner sustained accidental injuries and has taken treatment and is entitled for awarding of compensation is also not under challenge. The only question which requires to be considered is, whether the Tribunal has awarded just compensation.3. Petitioner deposed as P.W. 1. She has narrated about the injuries sustained by her in the acciden...

V.R. Bhojegowda Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ333

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was successful in securing an award dated 14th December, 2000 in ID. Reference No. 52 of 1995, Annexure-A directing the respondent-Cauveri Neeravari Nigama Niyamitha to reinstate the I party workman to the original post i.e., temporary daily wages graduate assistant within two months from the date of publication of the award, disentitling the petitioner to backwages and consequential service benefits, since he was a daily wage employee. That order when challenged by the employer-respondent, suffered an interim order in W.P. No. 36944 of 2001 directing the employer to pay to the petitioner Rs. 1,000/- per month. The writ petition it is said was dismissed by order dated 11-4-2005.2. The petitioner filed Application No. 4 of 2007 before the Labour Court, at Chickmagalur invoking Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for a direction to pay Rs. 1,48,228.57. The Labour Court having considered the award dated 14-12-2000 and keeping in ...

Children's Education Society Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (TD ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]319ITR409(KAR); [2009]319ITR409(Karn)

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The assessee is challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated May 31, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in I.T.A. Nos. 678, 679, 680, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687 and 688/Bang/1998 for the assessment years 1995-96. 1996-97, 1996-97, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1997-98 and 1995-96, raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the appellant falls under the definition of person responsible for deduction of tax at source in terms of Section 204 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in not holding that the appellant is an AOP within the meaning of Section 2(31) of the Act and assessable as individual and consequently not liable for deduction of tax at source under Section 194C/194-I of the Act?3. Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in confirming the orders under Section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act when the same has been passed on the secretary/chairman and not on ...

N. Pattabhi Ramaiah Vs. Smt. Ramakka Alias Thulasi Ramakka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ294

ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioner-judgment-debtor in Ex. No. 19 of 2008 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gudibanda is before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 17-8-2009 passed in Ex. No. 19 of 2008 issuing arrest notice to the petitioner-judgment-debtor at Annexure-A.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is not the legally wedded wife and the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 78 of 2007 has been challenged by filing an appeal. But, the Executing Court has issued arrest notice to the judgment-debtor.3. If the petitioner has filed an appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 78 of 2007, he is at liberty to take interim order staying the operation and execution of the decree. In the absence of stay in the appeal, there was no impediment to execute the decree and in issuing the arrest notice. The Trial Court has awarded maintenance in favour of the respondent against the petitoner. Since the petit...

State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. P.V. Rajashekara Reddy and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ292

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the appellants and the respondents.2. The appellant-State Government is said to have acquired various lands for the establishment of Central Jail at Parappana Agrahara, including the lands of the respondents. The respondents had challenged the acquisition proceedings in W.P. No. 31154 of 1995. The same was allowed quashing the final notification and directing the appellant-State to provide an opportunity of hearing to the respondents from the stage of Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents are said to have been heard and their objections overlooked. The final notification was published in the year 2001. It was again challenged by the respondents in yet another writ petition, on the ground that the final notification was filed beyond a period of one year.3. Though it is sought to be contended that the notification was within time. If the date of the notification under Section 4(1) is deemed to be with e...

Shivabasayya Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ273

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The petitioner, who is a public-spirited person, has filed this public interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus or direction to the respondents to preserve Revenue Survey No. 183 of Hanuman Nagar, Belgaum i.e., CTS Nos. 5056/1, 5057/1 and 5058/1 of Belgaum as open space/lung space park and playground; and to declare the action of the 4th respondent in leasing out the said land in favour of respondents 5 and 6 as null and void.2. Sri Ashok R. Kalyanashetty, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though as per the approved layout plan Sy. No. 183, in an extent of 13 acres, was earmarked for lung space/open space, children park, the said area is not used for the conceived purpose and the same came to be leased out to the fifth and sixth respondents for putting up buildings. It is his submission that the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 as well as the Urban Development Authorities require that the land reserved ...

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Gaviyappa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ537

Subhash B. Adi, J.1. Appeal is by the Insurance 'Company, questioning the judgment and award dated 6-2-2002 in No. KaAaThu:KaPaKa:CR-30/2001 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner').2. Respondents 1 and 2 and deceased-respondent 3 had filed a claim petition before the Commissioner on the allegation that, son of respondents 1 and 2 viz., one Krishnamurthy was the driver of lorry bearing No. KA-16/9786, while he was driving the said vehicle on 18-7-1997, when the said vehicle reached near Naganur, the said lorry met with an accident as a result of which, the deceased fell down from the lorry and suffered grievous injury and despite the treatment, he could not survive. The claimants-respondents 1 and 2 claiming to be the dependents on the deceased sought for compensation for the loss of the life of their son. The Commissioner on appreciation of the evidence awarded compensation of Rs. 2,11,790/- with interest at the...