Karnataka Court February 2011 Judgments

H V Subramanyaraj Urs S/O Late H L Vodappa Raj Urs. Vs. Smt. D R Lalit ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The rejection of the plaintiffs I.A.No. 10 under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, to examine the witness through Court Commissioner, in O.S.No.4510/2005. by order dated 20.11.2010 of the V Addl. City Civii Judge, Bangalore City, is called in question in this petition.2. The Court below, having permitted the plaintiff to examine one Thammaiab, Aged 90 years as the witness, filed I.A.No. 10 under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC to appoint a Commissioner to examine the said witness on the premise that the witness was in advanced age, a heart patient, unable to be brought before Court to tender oral evidence, enclosing Medical records. The order impugned discloses that though the medical record states that the witness was examined as an outpatient, the Court below surmised that the witness is in a position to move from one place to another and accordingly, rejected the application by the order impugned.3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties Merely because the witness was found to have travelled to the Ja...

Smt.K. Rukmini D/O J.KrishnappA. Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. by It ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard Mr. Rarndas, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Reuben Jacob, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Smt.Sheela Krishna, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1and Mr. S.R.Khamroz Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondent. No.3.2. Mr.Ramdas, learned Senior counsel submits that the two caste certificates,*which were issued and made a part of the application for appointment to the post of Junior Training Officer in Electrician Trade is not in conformity with the booklet or the pro forma issued by the K.P.S.C. Indeed, he submits that notwithstanding the fact that respondent No.3 is more meritorious the fact that there is an anomaly in the caste certificate issued in favour of respondent No.3. the said selection process warrants interference.3. Mr.Reuben Jacob, learned counsel appearing for K.P.S.C submits that the certificates issued in favour of the petitioner is by the revenue department and the one in favour of respondent No...

St. Francis De Sales Church. Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Princi ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. Bangalore, issued an official memorandum dated 02.12.1996 expressly directing, that the land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No. 19 of Gollahalli village, Attibek Hobli had been reserved for "Christian burials" under Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Accordingly, a direction came to be issued, in the aforesaid official memorandum dated 02.12.1996. that the State Government would take possession of the aforesaid land and transfer it to the Tahsildar, so as to be used by the Christian community as its burial ground.2. In compliance with the directions, contained in the official memorandum dated 02.12.1996, the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, addressed a memorandum dated 15.11.2001 recording, that the land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No. 19 of Gollahalli, village had been handed over to Hebbagodi Panchayat for maintenance. The aforesaid land, according to the memorandum, was to be used by the Christian community, as a burial groun...

Mr. Gerald Pereira S/O. Late John Baptist PereirA. Vs. Mangalore Elect ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The rejection of the plaintiffs LA-16 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in O.S.797/2003 by order dt. 9.8.2010 of the Prl. Civil Judge, Mangalore, D.K. is called in question in this petition.2. Petitioner filed IA-16 to amend the plaint by deleting the alphabet "C and adding the alphabet 'IT describing the survey number to the suit schedule property. In the affidavit accompanying the application. it was stated, due to typographical error the survey number of the suit schedule property was mentioned as 23/1C instead of 23/ID in the schedule and that, the mistake being inadvertent was not intentional. In addition, it was stated that in the written statement of the affidavit as well as in the cross-examination of DW-1, the correct survey number of the plaint schedule was said to be 23/ID and not 23/1C. The application was opposed by tiling counter statement of defendants 2 to 5 stating that the application lacks bonafides, without merit and that the pump-set to which re-connection was ordered ...

Eshwari Re-creation Association (Regd.). Vs. the Commissioner of Polic ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondents.2. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents net to insist upon it to obtain a license under the Licensing Order,3. The case of the petitioner is that it is an association duly registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 with the object of providing recreation facilities to its members. The petitioner-Association, it is urged in the writ petition, is conducting social and entertainment activities such as carom, chess, badminton and Rummy. It: is the further contention of the petitioner that for carrying out these activities, the petitioner is not required to obtain any license from the respondents, much less as required under Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act, However, the respondents have been insisting the petitioner to obtain license WP 6008/2011 and are also interfering with the lawful activities of the petitioner. Hen...

K.N. Shivakumari Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(2)KCCR1515; 2011(4)KantLJ656; 2011ILR(Kar)2579; 2011AIR(Kar)158

(Prayer: This Petition is Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Praying to Quash the order Dt. 11.7.05, Passed in PTCL SR I/05-06 on the file of the Asst. Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division Bangalore Vide Ann-B and the Order Dt. 10.11.09, Passed in Case No. LND SC.ST (A)10/08-09 on the File of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore Vide Ann-D, By Issue of Writ of Certiorari and Etc… Misc. W. 1077 of 2011 is filed U/s. 151 of CPC, Praying for early hearing of the Writ Petition and Etc…) 1. The matter has come up for orders on the application in Misc. W. 1077 of 2011 for early hearing of the writ petition. Though the matter has come up for orders on the said application, I have heard the matter on merits and the main matter itself is taken up for disposal. Misc. W. 1077 of 2011 for early hearing is ordered and the petition is heard. 2. A person who purchases a land granted in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste ...

Branch Manager, National Insurance Co., Ltd Vs. Ramalingegowda and Ano ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(2)KCCR1512; 2011ILR(Kar)1840; 2011(4)KantLJ644

(Prayer: This Appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, against the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2005 passed in WCA/NF-765/2001 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. Sub-Division-2, Mandya, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,69,189/- with interest at 12% after one month from the date of accident till the date of accident and directing the appellant herein to deposit the same.) 1. Second respondent in WCA/NF-765/2001 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Mandya, has come up in this appeal challenging the order so far as it pertains to saddling the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: First respondent - claimant is said to be a daily wager under second respondent herein, doing agricultural coolie work. The case of the claimant to that while he was working as agricultural collier under the second respondent...

Mr. Ravishankar and Another Vs. M and H Management Limited and Others

Court: Karnataka

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. These appeals have been filed against the order of the 18th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No.5080/2008 on the applications filed by the plaintiff seeking an interim order of injunction. The appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act of 1956 on 6.9.2005 in the name and style of Anantara Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. According to the appellant, the word ‘Anantara’ is a Sanskrit word meaning health, wellness and eternal youth and, the company is in hospitality business and no person in India is registered or had applied for registration under the name Anantara in any part of India. Only after it was satisfied the Registrar of Companies has incorporated the company in the name and style of Anantara Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. As per Section 147 of the Companies Act, in all business correspondence, company is required to compulsorily mention the said name Anantara. Further, according to the appellant, he got registered the domain name on 12.7....

Jayalakshmamma Vs. the State Government R/by Its Secretary to Revenue ...

Court: Karnataka

(This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Praying to call for the entire records from the Respondent Nos 2 and 3 which ultimately resulted in passing the Order Anx-A Dt.17.03.2009 Made In No. PTCL.19/2004 passed by the R2 and Anx-B Order Dt. 5.11.2004 Made In No. PTCL.8/2001-02 passed by the R3 and Etc….) Writ petitioner claims to be purchaser of an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 63 of A. Nagathihalli Village, Bidiganavile Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, under a sale deed dated 14.3.1996 executed by fourth respondent - her father-in-law in view of her father-in-law being in need of funds to celebrate his daughter’s marriage. 2. The said land was one which had been granted in favour of fourth respondent - Boraiah under Darkhast on 31.10.1983 as a person belonging to scheduled caste and on payment of kimmath of Rs.20/- by the fourth respondent. 3. While it is not very clear as to whether the father-in-...

The Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore a ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This ITA filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961, praying to formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No.1253/BNG/2008 dated 18.12.2009. 1. These appeals are preferred by the revenue challenging the order passed by the tribunal, which has upheld the deductions claimed by the assesses under Section 801B as well as under Section 80 HHC. The Tribunal in few cases did not grant the aforesaid relief and the assessee are in appeal. The question of law involved in all these appeals are one and the same, and therefore they are taken up for consideration together and disposed off by this common order. 2. The question of law that arises for consideration is as under:- “When the deduction of profits and gains of an undertaking is allowed under Section 80 1A, whether such profits and gains has to be deducted before computation of the profits and gains under Section 80HHC or after arri...