Karnataka Court March 2010 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.
The Commissioner of Income-tax and Vs. Ias Officers Associations, Chie ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-2010
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. Revenue has come up in this appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in ITA No. 650/Bang/2001 dated 19.11.2004.2. Assessee is a registered society under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. Members of the respondent-society are IAS Officers. An application filed under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act to grant exemption in respect of voluntary contribution received by it was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Assessee had not filed return of income, therefore notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. Thereafter, return of income was filed by the respondent. Assessing officer passed an order of assessment on 22.12.1999. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) contending that the exclusion of the expenditure claimed by the respondent-assessee in a sum of Rs. 53,826/- as illegal and erroneous. Appe...
Karthik Krishna S/O. Krishna Vs. A.C. Nagaraj S/O. Channappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-2010
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioner and respondent have entered into Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.3.2006 as per Annexure-A in respect of procurement of lands in Avathi Village and surrounding Villages of Devanahalli Taluk. According to the petitioner, respondent has not performed his part of contract/understanding. In view of the same, the petitioner has sent legal notice to the respondent on 21.2.2007 calling upon the respondent to pay the dues to the petitioner as per the Memorandum of Understanding.2. Clause-11 of the Memorandum of Understanding reveals that if there is any dispute between the parties, the same shall be settled through amicable negotiations. If the disputes cannot be resolved through negotiations, the same shall be referred to sole arbitrator appointed by the parties. Invoking the said Clause, petitioner issued legal notice on 15.3.2009 as per Annexure-B, to the respondent. In the said notice, the petitioner has nominated the arbitrator. However, no r...
L.M. Glasfiber India Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Plant Director Vs. State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-2010
ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of reference dated 16.11.2009 - Annexure C passed by the first respondent.2. Petitioner is a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture of blades for wind turbines. It is the case of the petitioner - company that it has incurred huge losses in the years 2008 and 2009. On account of low order position, petitioner's factory could not operate to its full capacity. The petitioner -company had employed more than 100 workmen. The second respondent is the registered trade union representing the workmen of the petitioner - company. Having regard to the condition of petitioner - company, it had filed an application on 01.06.2009 under Section 25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') to close down the undertaking with effect from 01.09.2009 and also to terminate the...
Rudresh S/O. Chennaiah Vs. Sri. T.T. Manjunath S/O. Thontaradhya, Owne ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-2010
JUDGMENT 1. Though matter is listed today for admission by consent of learned Advocates the matter is taken up for final hearing since it is of the year 2007 and Lower Court records having been received 2. The unsuccessful claimant is questioning the correctness and the legality of the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.847/1999 dated 13.10.2006 whereundcr the claim petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed. The parties aie referred to as per the ranks in the Court below. 3. The facts in nutshell leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows: Smt.Puttamma was said to be travelling in a Lorry bearing No.CRT-8338 with her luggage on 13.05.1992 and when the said vein'cie reached Kattigenahalli gate on National Highway 4 at about 8.00 p.m. accident in question occurred on account of the negligent act on the part of the driver of the Lorry as well as by the driver of the opposite Lorry bearing Reg. No. CNL-5550. It was contended before the Tribunal that clue to I he said a...
Sri S. Basheer S/O Late Pachasab Vs. Sri H.M. Bhaskar S/O Late Madhava ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-2010
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court, seeking a declaration mat he was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff himself asserting that the sale deeds under which the defendant may claim were fabricated documents. The Trial Court cast the burden of proving the plaint averments entirely on the plaintiff and dismissed the suit, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court.3. In the present second appeal, several substantial questions of law are sought to be raised. The primary contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff having stoutly denied the authenticity of the sale deeds, under which the defendant claimed as being fabricated documents. The Trial Court ought to have having cast the burden of proving the sale deeds as being genuine on the defendant as having been executed by the erstwhile owners. In the absence of which, the Courts below have failed to addre...
Karnataka State Financial Corporation Rep. by H.M. Vijaya Kumar, Deput ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-2010
V. Jagannathan, J.1. This appeal is by the KSFC challenging the dismissal of the petition filed by it Under Section 31(1)(a)(aa) and Section 32 of the State Financial Corporation Act. 1951. The petition was filed seeking an order to enforce liability on the respondents to an extent of Rs. 11,28,338/- due as on 10.12.2004 together with interest as prayed for in the petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, this appeal is preferred by the KSFC.2. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.3. Learned Counsel Sri. S.G. Pandit for the appellant submits that the trial court was in error in dismissing the petition and the three grounds upon which this appeal is filed are that the finding on limitation is erroneous, so also the finding on issues 2 and 3 raised by the trial court for consideration. As far as the relief ground is concerned, submission made is that the trial court erred in reckoning the period of limitation from the date on which the veh...
Brig. Subhash Chandra Sharma S/O. Vaid Prakash Sharma and Ms. Amita Sh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-2010
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Respondent has refused the notice and hence service of notice is held sufficient as against the respondent.Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and perused the records.2. Petitioners and the respondent entered into an agreement of sale of a residential flat for 3 sale consideration of Rs. 84,00,000/-. However, according to the petitioners, in the agreement of sale it is mentioned as Rs. 60,00,000/-. An amount of Rs. 39,00,000/- is said to have to been paid by the petitioners to respondent. Rs. 24,00,000/- was paid by cash and the remaining amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was paid by two cheques bearing Nos. 236621 and 23662. Petitioners have raised the loan from HDFC Bank. HDFC Bank has informed the petitioners on 3.4.2009 that the bank is ready and willing to sanction an amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- to purchase the flat. On 14.4.2009, the petitioners have sent a registered letter to the respondent's Managing Director and Authorized Si...
Shri N.P. Anandegowda S/O Puttaswamygowda, Vs. Shri Basavalingaiah S/O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-2010
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. The appellants were the defendants before the trial Court in a suit for injunction, which was later converted into suit for declaration and possession and the same having been, decreed, has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court which is sought to be challenged.2. There are several contentions taken by the Counsel for the appellants. Firstly, that the appellants have been in possession for over 20 years and sought regularisation before the competent authorities under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. That the alleged grant made in favour of the plaintiff has been cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner which order has been affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and further, on appeal to the Land Tribunal, there is no interim order in favour of the respondent and therefore, would submit that the Courts below have completely overlooked the material evidence produced by the appellants to establish their continued possession over the suit property, while accepting the ...
Smt. Papamma W/O Nannivalada Obaiah Vs. Sanna Boraiah S/O Chinnaiah,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-2010
ORDERRavi Malimath, J.1. In the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for declaration, the respondents/defendants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking amendment of the written statement and a counter claim vas also made by the respondent/defendant No. 1 at the stags of evidence of the plaintiff. The Trial Court allowed the said application. Hence, this petition.2. Though the respondents are served, they have remained absent. In the circumstances, I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.3. Sri. B.M. Siddappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. He contends that once a written statement is filed, a counter claim would not be allowed under Order 8 Rule 6A of CPC.4. On hearing, I am of the considered view that in terms of Order 8 Rule 6 of C.P.C, a defendant may set up, a counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff before the defenda...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. by Its Dy. Manager Vs. Shri B. Jagadis ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-2010
V. Jagannathan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and none appears for the respondents.2. This appeal is by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., calling in question the assessment of earning capacity by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bangalore, while allowing the claim application filed by the respondent No. 1-claimant.3. The accident is not in dispute so also the respondent No. 1 being an employee and met with the accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. The only grievance of the appellant is that the Commissioner erred in taking the earning capacity loss at 100% when the doctor's evidence itself is at 16% for the whole body. The further submission made is that even subsequent to the accident, the claimant has continued his licence renewal and licence was renewed from 29.11.2000 to 28.11.2003. Therefore, the Commissioner could not have taken the earning capacity loss at 100%.4. In the light of the above submission made and on going ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »