Karnataka Court March 2009 Judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Incom ...

Court: Karnataka

B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue on the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the profit of the assessee should be estimated at 88 of the cost of construction in respect of the Land Mark Apartment instead of the actual difference of Rs. 20,52,265/- arrived at from the declaration made by the assessee towards the cost of construction at Rs. 50,11,275/- and that fixed by the valuation officer at Rs. 70,63,540/- which had been admitted by both the appellate authorities and the same was not disputed?2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in merely holding that no error was pointed out in respect of the appellate Commissioner's orders without independently considering the controversy before it and recording a finding on it?2. The relevant facts of the case are that the respondent assessee as an individual had filed re turn a for the assessment year 1993-94 on 30.11.1993. The assessing officer found that...

S.N. Ramaswamy Reddy S/O. Late Narayana Reddy Vs. S.N. Sampangi Reddy ...

Court: Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.1. Heard Sri. P.N. Nanja Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. K.K. Thayamma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.2. This miscellaneous second appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.1.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Fast Tract Court-II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in R.A. No. 103/06 whereunder the lover appellate court after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff, has remanded the suit to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law by taking on record the additional documents produced by the plaintiff-appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.3. The parties herein are brothers being the sons of one S. Narayana Reddy. The respondent-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 360/01 against the defendant-appellant for the relief of partition and separate possession intar-alia c...

The Commissioner of Income Tax and the Asst. Commissioner of Income Ta ...

Court: Karnataka

Manjula Chellur, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue tinder Section 260A of the Income Tax Act aggrieved by the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji, in ITA No. 817/Bang/1954 dated 7.8.2002, raising the following substantial question of law.Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without the assessee discharging the burden under the explanation which would entitle such a deletion by merely holding that the subsequent admission revised return and the co-operative attitude of the assessee was sufficient to delete the penalty?2. It is not in dispute that the assessee in question - the respondent before us came into existence under a deed of partnership in the year 1986. The assesses was carrying on business of selling and supplying of arrack and the return of income came to be filed on 5.10.1998 for the assessment year 1988-89 declaring a total income of Rs. 87,380-. A search came to be conducted between...

Tammanna and ors. Vs. Miss Renuka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2009Kant119; ILR2009KAR1207; 2009(4)KarLJ193

BY GOPALA GOWDA, J:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 227 - Orders passed under - Whether appeal would lie there against under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act in respect of interlocutor}' orders passed in the Original Suit proceedings by the Civil Courts - HELD, As the revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 CPC is taken away by amending the same and in the light of the powers conferred under Sections 9(xii)(a) and (b) and Section 10(iva) of the Act, I am of the opinion that right of appeal is available to a litigant against the orders passed by the single judge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the writ petitions filed against the judgments, awards and orders/interlocutory orders of Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, quasi Judicial Tribunals/Authorities, Family Courts and Civil Courts in their respective proceedings and the said power is expressly conferred and the same is restricted to the orders, judgments etc., passed under original jurisdiction ...

High Court of Karnataka Rep. by the Registrar General Vs. S. Venkanna ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR1478; 2009(5)KarLJ513

ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. This is an unfortunate case, wherein the misery of a poor litigant, expressed by him on account of the long delay in disposal of the case, has been erroneously looked as contempt of Court by the Learned subordinate Judge, at whose instance, this suo moto proceedings have been initiated by the Registry and placed before us for consideration.2. The alleged accused/respondent Sri S. Venkanna Rao, has filed a Private Complaint in the Court of IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore which is registered in CC No. 23638/2006. According to the Learned Magistrate, who has complained to the High Court that, the letter of the accused written to him on 26.08.2008 is contemptuous, which reads as follows:3. By looking into the said paragraphs, and especially in the background of the case, in our considered view, these are the outcries of a poor litigant, who is also a senior citizen, making grievances against the delay in disposal of his case, which he is fightin...

G.H. Gurumurthy S/O. Halagashetty Vs. Kale Gowda S/O. Kale Gowda

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3481:2009(3)KCCR2147:2009(5)AIRKarR438

B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor challenging the order dated 30.1.2009 passed in Misc. 15/07 by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Divn.), Araslkere. The said order was made on the application filed under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, (for short, 'the Code') by the petitioner herein and the same came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection, this revision petition has been filed.2. The relevant facts of the case are that O.S. No. 439/77 was filed for recovery of a certain sum by the respondent against the petitioner herein. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 18.12.1980. Subsequently, Execution Petition No. 238/81 was filed by the respondent for execution of the said decree. In the said proceeding, by order dated 24.10.1981, the suit schedule property was attached and on 23.9.1988 there was a public auction of the said property and by another order dated 31.8.1989, the sale was ...

Nanjunda S/O. Puttaiah, Attender, Vs. Sri. Chamarajendra Zoolological ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ26; 2009(3)KCCRSN94; 2009(4)AIRKarR412

ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. The petitioners-1 to 3 in W.P. No. 10644/2006 and the petitioners in W.P. No. 10577/2006 are common. Though the reliefs sought in the writ petitions an; different, the basic facts leading to filing of the writ petitions are also common. Therefore, both the writ petitions are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners have been working as attenders at Sri Chamarajendra Zoological Garden, Mysore, the 1st respondent at W.P. No. 10644/2006. An order dated 21.11.2005 wan passed by the disciplinary authority keeping them under suspension on the ground that they are responsible for the death of certain zoo animals. Subsequently, show cause notices were issued proposing to hold the disciplinary enquiry against them. Criminal prosecution was launched against them on the basis of the same set of facts. The petitioners denied the charge by filing their reply. Being not satisfied with the reply, the disciplinary authority constituted ...

Haranahalli Ramaswamy Vs. K. Shama Rao (Dead) and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KarLJ362

ORDERArali Nagaraj, J. 1. The only accused in C.C. No. 16174 of 2002 on the file of the learned 8th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking quashing of the order dated 30-6-2005 passed in the said case insofar as it relates to the direction issued to the petitioner-accused by the Trial Court to appear before it on 30th August, 2005. The petitioner has sought for direction to the Trial Court to pass order on the application of the 2nd respondent herein filed in the said case under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner has further sought for exemption from his personal attendance before the Trial Court pending his trial in the said case.2. I have heard the arguments of Sri G. Krishna Murthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused and Sri Raghavendra K., the learned Counsel for the respondent 2. The first respondent namely Sri...

The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Now Rep. by Its Regio ...

Court: Karnataka

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. All the three appeals arise out of the same accident resulting in death of two workmen and personal injuries to one. The dependents of the deceased workmen and the injured workman had filed petitions under W.C. Act. The insurer has filed the above appeals.2. The material facts discloses that the deceased workmen and injured workman were quarrying the sand for the purpose of loading the lorry. In the process of quarrying, there was a landslide, the heap of sand fell causing personal injury to one and death of two workmen. The W.C. Commissioner has found that the accident occurred in the course of and out of employment and in the use of motor vehicle. The W.C. Commissioner has assessed the wages of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month.3. The insurer has filed all the above appeals to avoid liability on the ground that the risk of the workmen in question is not covered under the policy and also that the income assessed at Rs. 4,000/- is on higher scale i...

Sri Krishnashetty S/O. Huchchappashetty Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR4111:2009(4)KCCRSN215:2009(6)AIRKarR198

B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C. No. 142/03 dated: 9.10.07 by MACT, at Chennarayapatna.2. The relevant facts of the case for the purpose of consideration of the issue which arises in this appeal are that on 12.11.2000 at about 7.45 a.m., a minor boy of 14 years by name Irfan was walking in front of Lakshmi Engineering Works on B.M. Road, at that time, a tempo trax bearing No. KA-17-2224 belonging to the appellant herein was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to General hospital at Chennarayapatna and thereafter to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, where he was treated. Contending that he had suffered permanent disability on account of the accidental injuries, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation on various heads.3. On receipt of notice from the tribunal, the appellant-owner of the vehicle and the insuran...