Karnataka Court April 2010 Judgments

Smt. Subha Prasad Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (inv)

Court: Karnataka

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The assessee has come up in this appeal being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the order passed by the Assessing Officer which has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and further confirmed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in IT (SS) A No. 13/B/02 dated 28.3.2005. At the time of admission the appeal is admitted to consider the questions of law. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for both the parties submit that the following questions would arise in this appeal. Therefore, on the submission we have considered the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in law holding that the income admitted by the appellant in the regular return for the assessment year 1993-94 to 1996-97 is to be assessed as undisclosed income for the block period under the facts and circumstances of the case?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is the Tribunal correct, in holding that the in...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Regional Office Rep. by Its As ...

Court: Karnataka

N.K. Pail, J.1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the impugned common, judgment and award dated 7th September 2004, passed in M.V.C. No. 244/2002, on the file of the III Additional District, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, D.K. Mangalore, (for short, Tribunal') for reduction of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 6,66,600/- awarded in favour of the claimants is excessive, exhorbitant and needs to be reduced.2. The facts in brief are that the respondents 1 to 3 herein are none other than the claimants, who are the wife and children of deceased Sri H. Moideen, who met with an accident at about 8:00 A.M. on 14-11-2001, when he was travelling in goods tempo bearing Registration No. CNG 5483 from Udupi towards Mangalore. The accident occurred when a lorry bearing No. MP 26/C-3833 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tempo from the hind side. Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained grievous and multiple injur...

D.B. Siddalingaiah S/O Balagangaiah Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Devappa W/O V. ...

Court: Karnataka

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. The complainant is before this Court in appeal aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the XVI Addl. CMM. Bangalore in CC 35096/2001 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The appellant/complainant filed a complaint against the respondent/accused alleging that during the second week of January 2001, the accused had borrowed a loan of Rs. 6 lacs from him and towards discharge of the same, had issued a cheque dated 1.6.2001 drawn on Central Bank of India, Bangalore. On presentation of the same through his banker, the cheque was returned back with an endorsement insufficient funds. Thereafter, complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused demanding the amount. The notice was received by the accused and she also replied to the said notice on 27.6.2001 through her advocate denying any such debt. However, since the accused did not pay back the amount, private complaint came to be filed for the offence punishable...

Sri. K. Venkatappa S/O Late Rajanna Retired Village Accountant Vs. the ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERManjula Chellur, J.1. Learned Government Advocate takes Notice for Rule 1 to Rule 3. Two weeks time is granted to file his Vakalath. Heard.2. It is seen that the appellant who was Village Accountant was absent during his entire service as follows:01.01.1964 to 27.07.1964; 02.05.1970 to 24.02.197101.09.1971 to 01.04.1972; 16.10.1977 to 09.01.197916.08.1979 to 30.07.1999, and till 1979 when he resisted the transfer to Bhadravati Taluk from Shimoga, the concerned authorities did not initiate any disciplinary action. As a matter of fact, after resisting his transfer to Bhadravati the appellant again remained absent and at that point of time disciplinary action was initiated. Meanwhile he retired from service. However, the fact remains he did not take part in the disciplinary proceedings. By the order dt.4.9.2004 the Deputy Commissioner opined that the following period of absence shall be treated as unauthorised absence:01.01.1964 to 27.07.1984; 02.05.1970 to 24.02.197101.09.1971 to 01...

Puttaraju S/O. Sri Ramappa Vs. T. Chandrappa S/O. Thimmappa,

Court: Karnataka

B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.1. This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.3. The brief facts of the case;On 16.11.2004, when the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing No. KA.19/Y.6051 on Chikmagalur-Tarikere Road near Mountain View School, the lorry bearing No .KA.18/6352 came with great speed and dashed against his motorcycle. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the MACT, Chikmagalur for seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- with interest 6%p.a.4. As there is no dispute regarding injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor road accident and the liability of the Insurance Company, the only point that (sic) for my consideration in the appeal is:Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call f...

Smt. D. Jayalakshmi W/O Late K. Dharmeshi, Vs. B.V. Deepak S/O G.V. Na ...

Court: Karnataka

N.K. Patil, J.1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 30th November 2004, passed in M.V.C. No. 864/2002, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, (Senior Division) & II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Davangere, (for short, Tribunal' ) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 3,91,000/- with interest at 6% per annum, awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 25.00 lakhs, is inadequate.2. The brief facts of the case are that, the first appellant is the wife, appellants 2 and 3 are the minor children and appellant No. 4 is the mother of the deceased late Sri. K. Dharmeshi, who died in the road traffic accident that occurred at about 9:00 A.M., on 01-09-2003, near Bapuji Hospital Cross on Dental College Road, Davangere. That on the said date, time and place, when the deceased was going on Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle, bearing Registration No. KA-17/Q-6790, as pillion...

Ms. Anitha Kumari D/O Sh. Parameshwar Durbey and ors. Vs. State of Kar ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDER H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ to direct the second respondent to issue completion certificate to the petitioners, to direct the third respondent to issue No Due Certificate and further, to direct the third respondent to accept the bank guarantee for the amount which the petitioners are due for excess fee paid by them and for other reliefs.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have completed the course in MBBS successfully. The petitioners intend to pursue their further studies in Post Graduation in various faculties in medicine. For this purpose the petitioners require a No Due Certificate from third respondent and on production of that No Due Certificate the second respondent will issue the completion certificate.3. It is seen from the record that a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 5655/2006 and connected matters disposed on 09.11.2009 directed the third respondent to refund the excess fee collected by them...

North-east Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. K.T. Venkatesh

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(3)KarLJ255

B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.1. Appeal is admitted and with the consent of both sides, it is taken up for final disposal.2. This appeal is by the KSRTC, challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal both on the ground of negligence as well as quantum.3. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.4. Brief facts of the case are:That on 7-4-2006, when the claimant was passing near Town Hall Circle at Tumkur, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-34-F-581 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs. 1,83,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realisation.5. The learned Counsel appearing for the KSRTC submits, the claimant was riding the motor cycle bearing regi...

Anil Kumar Vs. Smt. Lakshmamma and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(3)KarLJ261

B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.1. The appeal is admitted and with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.3. Brief facts of the case are:The claimant having sustained bodily injuries in a motor road accident occurred on 6-7-2007, while travelling as pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing registration No. K-50-E-4861, due to rash and negligent driving of a tipper lorry bearing registration No. CNT-7248, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, SCCH-10 (Tribunal) seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs. 61,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realisation. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, he has come up in appeal seeking enhancement.4. As there is no dispute regarding i...

Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Commissioner of Customs Vs. Pharmacia Ind ...

Court: Karnataka

B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. The revenue has filed this appeal by challenging the final order No. 1238 of 2005 dated 27.07.2005 passed in Appeal No. C/323/2002 dated 3.8.2005.2. At the time of admission itself, the following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court on 5.9.2006 which read as under:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, refund claim made by the respondent is not covered by 'unjust enrichment'?2. Whether the respondent has discharged its burden in the matter of passing on liability directly or indirectly to other person?3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the respondent - assessee had imported certain machinery on payment of duty. However, it subsequently found that the said goods were exempted from customs duty by virtue of notification dated 2.6.1998. Therefore, the respondent - assessee filed an application for refund of the amounts mistakenly paid as duty.4. The Deputy Commissioner [Refunds] held that the application was ...