Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2009)227CTR(Kar)335; [2010]321ITR209(KAR); [2010]321ITR209(Karn)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The above appeals are all by the revenue directed against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, where under the Tribunal had allowed the appeals filed by different resident - assessees in respect of different assessment years by holding that the resident - assessees were not liable for deduction of any part of the payments made by them to non-resident suppliers as price (for consideration) for the software which the resident - assessees had acquired/purchased from the non-residents for the purposes of the activities/business of the resident -assessees in the background of the nature of their liability/obligation under the provisions of Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act'] by holding that the subject payments were not in the nature of royally payments within the meaning of Section 9[1][vi] of the Act and if it is not royalty it is not income and if it was not income in the hands of the non-resident as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2006(5)KarLJ469
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. The plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction against the defendants before the Munsiff at Bhadravathi seeking for a permanent injunction against the defendants who are the appellants herein in respect of property in Sy.No.60 to the extent of 5.11 acres and in Sy.No. 61 to the extent of 5 acres wet land situate in Madishetty Village of Bhadravathi Taluk.2. It is pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff is the owner in possession and cultivating the suit schedule property which is the ancestral property of the plaintiff's father Narayana Rao and after the death of Narayana Rao, the plaintiffs name had been mutated in the RTC and mutation extracts and the plaintiff's property was also attached to the Village Patel's office. After the death of the plaintiffs father, the plaintiff along with his mother filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner for re-grant of the land under Section 5 of the Inams Act. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India with a prayer to quash the notification dated 13.06.2011 and etc.)1. In these writ petitions have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the government notification dated 13.06.2011 Annexure-F.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 45889/2011 is District Central Cooperative Bank at Tumkur and petitioner in W.P.No. 7398/2012 is the South Canara District Central Cooperative Bank, Mangalore. The petitioner - banks are registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act (for short the Act). The petitioners are engaged in banking business. The financial assistance to these petitioners are founded by the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (for short NABARD) through the Apex Banks at the State level. The petitioners in-turn are extending financial assistance to Taluka Agricultural Societies and Primary Societies.3. The first respondent Government of Karnataka by exercisin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1995(1)ALT(Cri)651; ILR1994KAR1608
ORDER1. The revision petitioners have questioned the taking of cognizance and issue of process by the learned Principal Civil Judge and C.J.M., Shimoga by orders dated 13-12-1993 and 16-12-1993 in C.C. No. 437 of 1993. 2. Revision Petition No. 715 of 1993 is by Accused No. 2 and Revision Petition No. 13 of 1994 is by Accused No. 3 3. Since a common question of law is involved in both these petitions, they have heard together and the following order is passed. 4. To appreciate the contention of the petitioners, a few facts are relevant and they are as follows :- On 14-12-1992 one K. G. Basavarajappa and his wife Dakshayaniyamma were found dead in their house situated at 4th Cross, Jyothirao Beedi, Vidyanagar, Shimoga, Initial investigation disclosed that it is a case of suicide. Therefore, a case under UDRR No. 33 of 92 read with Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was registered. Later on a complaint dated 31-3-1993 was lodged that the couple had died a homicidal death. A cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1982Kant242; ILR1982KAR743
Sabhahit, J.1. This arises out of a reference made by the Principal Civil Judge, Shimoga, by his order dated 8-9-1980 passed by him for dissolution of marriage in Matrimonial Case No. 21 of 1979, on his file.2. Shri Chandramohan Kumar made a petition to the Court of the District Judge, Shimoga, for dissolution of his marriage with Mrs. Florence Indravathi, respondent-1 in the petition, under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He averred that -his marriage with respondent-1 in the petition was solemnised on 18-5-1978 according to Christian Religious Rites. After the marriage, he took respondent-1 to his residence on 21-5-1978. Respondent-1 stayed with the petitioner for a week and, thereafter, she went to Bommanahally to the house of her parents along with the petitioner. On 30-5-1978 in the night, the marital ceremony was arranged. But according to the petitioner, respondent-1 did not co-operate with the petitioner for sexual intimacy. Even on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1995CriLJ1491; 1995(1)KarLJ584
ORDERR. Ramakrishna, J.1. The revision petitioners have questioned the taking of cognizance and issue of process by the learned Principal Civil Judge and C.J.M., Shimoga by orders dated 13-12-1993 and 16-12-1993 in C.C. No. 437 of 1993.2. Revision Petition No. 715 of 1993 is by Accused No. 2 and Revision Petition No. 13 of 1994 is by Accused No. 3.3. Since a common question of law is involved in both these petitions, they have heard together and the following order is passed.4. To appreciate the contention of the petitioners, a few facts are relevant and they are as follows :-On 14-12-1992 one K.G. Basavarajappa and his wife Dakshayaniyamma were found dead in their house situated at 4th Cross, Jyothirao Beedi, Vidyanagar, Shimoga. Initial investigation disclosed that it is a case of suicide. Therefore, a case 'under UDRR No. 33 of 92 read with Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was registered. Later on a complaint dated 31-3-1993 was lodged that the couple had died a homicid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These two Petitions are being disposed of by the following common order as they involve the same substantial question of law though the prayers in the two petitions are differently worded.2. In Writ Petition No. 16184 of 1979, the petitioner has prayed that this Court may issue a Writ or Direction or Order in the nature of a declaration declaring that Exhibit 'E', the Government Order dated 22-2 1978, is illegal and unlawful. He has also prayed that a Writ of Prohibition may be issued to the Government prohibiting it from taking any action in respect of the petitioner, who is working under the third respondent in the first of the petitions, viz., The Karnataka State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Bangalore (hereinafter referred 10 as 'the KSCLD Bank'). The other prayers are general prayers for consequential reliefs, if any.The prayer in Writ Petition No. 1452 of 1980 is to quash the Government Order dated 22-2-1978 produced at Exhibit 'G', which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant141; AIR1969Mys141; ILR1968KAR1003; (1968)2MysLJ355
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against an order made on 7-8-1967 in Civil Suit No. 57 of 1964 on the file of the learned Munsiff of Madhol, permitting the plaintiffs therein to withdraw from the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit under Order 23 Rule 1(2)(b) C.P.C.2. The few facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are as follows: The respondents in this revision were the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 57 of 1964 on the file of the learned Munsiff at Madhol. They sued the defendant (the revision petitioner) for mere recovery of possession of property bearing R. S. No. 108 at Junnur village of Madhol Taluk, with costs and mesne profits. In the suit the prayer was confined to one Revenue Survey number specified above.3. After the pleadings were completed and the suit was posted for evidence, the plaintiffs filed Ex. 76 under O. 23 R. 1 C.P.C. praying for permission to withdraw from the suit and liberty to file a fresh suit. The ground stated therein is that the first...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR3954; (1987)IILLJ113Kant
ORDER1. In this Writ Petition in which the petitioner, a member of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS for short), has questioned the constitutional validity of Clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Rule 5(a) of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954, ('the Rules' for short), the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether on the coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short) and the establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to retain or entertain petitions presented under that Article before it, challenging the constitutional validity of any law regulating recruitment and conditions of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and decide such petitions stood excluded and got vested in the Central Administrative Tribunal ?' 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR376
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. These appeals are by the Writ Petitioners, whose Writ Petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge. ILR 1987 KAR 3008 The petitioners challenged the land acquisition proceedings by questioning the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the Declaration made under Section 6(1) thereof.2. Petitioners, assert that they are the owners of various lands sought to be acquired for the benefit of Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., (referred hereinafter as 'the Society'). By a Notification dated 30-5-1983 published in the Gazette dated 16-6-1983, the State Government notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act as in force in Karnataka by the amendment made by the Karnataka Act 17/1961, that 'the lands specified in the schedule to the notification are likely to be needed for the public purpose to wi(sic) for the Members of the Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore at Bilek...
Tag this Judgment!