Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005ACJ479; 2004(5)KarLJ7
R.V. Raveendran, J. 1. Respondent herein was the driver of lorry bearing Registration No. CAM-105 of which second appellant is the owner and first appellant is the insurer. Respondent sustained an employment injury on 4-2-1996 when driving the said lorry. He sustained serious injuries to the right leg (comminuted fracture of middle and lower one-third of right fibula, oblique fracture of midshaft of right tibia, fracture of head of left fibula, fracture of lower pole of right patella and oblique comminuted fracture of distal shaft of second metatarsal).2. The petitioner filed a claim petition (W.C. No. 4 of 1996) under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('Act' for short), praying for award of Rupees Three lakhs as compensation, in respect of the said injuries. In the claim petition the respondent (also referred to as the 'workman') averred that he was aged 35 years and was getting a salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month apart from Rs. 25/- per day as batta, at the time of acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2004Kant390; ILR2004KAR3140
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a member of the Karnataka Rural Homeopathic Medical Practitioners' Association, Gokak, practicing Homeopathic system of Medicine at Hole Alur. According to him, he has vast experience in Homeopathic system of medicine and that he has been taking special care for the poor patients satisfying all their medical needs. It is his further case that the Homeopathic Medical Practitioners in Karnataka and Karnataka Rural Homeopathic Medical Practitioners' Association, Gokak, have been urging the Government of Karnataka to open Registration for the benefit of the un-registered Homeopathic Medical Practitioners, to get themselves registered in accordance with the provisions of the Homoeopathic Medical Practitioners' Act. Though several representations were filed, the State has not heeded to their request. The Registrar of Karnataka Ayurvedic & Unani Practitioners Board, issued a notice as per Annexure-D calling upon the petitioner to appear b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR1446; (2008)11VST811(Karn)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. The assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and also a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (KTEG Act' for short). It is engaged in the activity of manufacture and sale of cement in the State of Karnataka.2. The State Government, after considering the proposal of the petitioner company for expansion of its cement plant at Wadi, Gulbarga District, has issued Government Order No. CI22 SPI97, dated 26-2-1997, granting certain incentives and concessions, and one such incentive was concessions of tax payable under the provisions of the Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act. The incentive so provided is as under:INCENTIVES AND CONCESSIONS: The Company is sanctioned the following incentives and concessions:(a) 100% exemption of Sales Tax (KST and CST) on the sale of finished goods for a period of 9 (nine) years, or, deferment of sales tax on sale of finished goods ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2007)208CTR(Kar)146; [2006]287ITR201(KAR); [2006]287ITR201(Karn)
1. All these cases are disposed of by this common order.ITA 86/99This appeal is at the Instance of the revenue. In relation to the assessment year 1995-96, the assessment was concluded in the respondent assessee's case, disallowing deduction as claimed under Section 80(O) of the Income Tax Act. An appeal was filed before the Appellate Commissioner. The appeal Stood dismissed. Thereafter an appeal was preferred to the tribunal. The tribunal allowed the appeal in terms of an order dtd 8-4-1999. Aggrieved by the order of the tribunal, the revenue is before us. The following questions of law are framed by this Court;Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the tribunal is correct in law in holding that the appellant is entitled for the relief in respect of deduction under Section 80-O of the Act?Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is correct in law in entertaining the appeal by condoning the delay?ITRC 25/2000This reference is again at the in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(1)KarLJ1
R. Gururajan, J.1. Hindu temples/Trustees of temples/arches and others of Karnataka ace before us aggrieved by the Judgment of this Court dated 9.9.2005 passed in W.P. Nos. 31937/2003 and connected matters in these appeals.2. It is unnecessary for us to refer to the facts in each one of the cases. The State Government in terms of the powers conferred on then has chosen to enact a law by name the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and the Rules framed thereunder. The said Act in terms of the statement of objects and reasons was enacted in the light of a longstanding public demand to bring about a uniform law to provide for the regulation of all charitable Endowments and Hindu Religious Institution in the State, which are now regulated under different enactments having local application in different parts of the State. The said Act was brought into force with effect from in terms of the notification. The Act is applicable to Hindu Religious Institu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2007]136CompCas782(Kar); [2007]74SCL51(Kar)
ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. These set of revisions are being taken together for disposal since parties are common in all these petitioners.2. These are complainant's revisions being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate in discharging accused 3 and 4. Petitioner being the Reserve Bank of India through the Department of Non-Banking Supervision got filed a complaint against respondents 1 to 4. The 1st respondent is the company by name Shetty Leasing India Ltd and 2nd respondent is its Managing Director. The 3rd and 4th respondents are said to be the Directors of the said company registered under the Companies Act The petitioner -- Reserve Bank of India is the regulatory authority for non-banking financial companies. As a regulatory authority, it has got powers under Chapter III B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 including issue of Certificate of Registration to non-banking institutions, prescribing norms, issuing instructions, prohibiting non-banking companies from a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(2)KarLJ126; ILR2007(1)KarSN7; 2007(2)KCCR833; 2007(1)AIRKarR598
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are challenging the notifications dated 17.2.2003 and 15.3.2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka, complaining that their preferential rights under Rule 11(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 are affected by those notifications. Therefore, all these petitions are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. In WP.No. 18445/2003 the petitioner is National Mineral Development corporation Limited a Government of India Enterprises. On 11/12.12.1968 they made an application for mining lease over an area of 4025 hectares of land situated in Ramadurga, Bellary District, Karnataka. No orders were passed within the stipulated period on the said application. It is deemed to have been rejected. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a revision before the revisional authority-Central Government and the revision was allowed directing the State Government to consider the application af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR2245; 2009(2)KarLJ291; 200(3)KCCR1692; 2008(5)AIRKarR120; AIR2008NOC2774
N. Kumar, J.1. This is a defendant's Regular First Appeal.2. This appeal along with other six connected appeals were heard by this Court and by a common order dated 15.4.1999 they were allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said common judgment and decree dated 15.4.1999 the aggrieved persons, preferred Special Leave Petition to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In the Supreme Court, the counsel for the parties agreed for setting aside the impugned judgment of this Court and remitting the appeals to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by this Court on 15.4.1999 was set aside and the appeals were remitted back to this Court for fresh decision in accordance with law with a request to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible. It is thereafter, this appeal is heard along with other six connected appeals. Though the parties are different, the question of law involved in all these ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008(1)KarLJ187; (2008)IILLJ193Kant; 2007(5)AIRKarR402
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The counsel for the parties were heard at length.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner, Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, is a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Societies Act, for brevity). The Government of Karnataka holds 90% of the share capital in the said society. A ginning and pressing factory at Hubli, is a unit run by the petitioner. Respondent No. 1, the Dharwad District Employees' Association, is said to represent workmen engaged by the petitioner at the said unit.The ginning factory, established in the year 1976, was intended to support cotton growers and traders in the area. The operation of the unit was seasonal, as it could operate only during the season when cotton was made available. Hence there was no need to employ a large contingent of permanent employees. When the unit was operational during the season, workmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR606; 2008(5)KLJ18; 2008(2)KCCR838; 2008(2)AIRKarR537
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the notification at Annexure 'E' dated 19.7.2007 issued by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 whereby tenders have been invited for lease of Raibag Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamitha, Raibag, Belgaum District, under lease, rehabilitated, operate and transfer (for short 'LROT') basis for a period of 30 (thirty) years starting from the year 2007-08 to 2036-37. The petitioners have also challenged the proceedings of the State Government at Annexure 'G' dated 5.8.2006 whereby the State Government has decided to revive the aforesaid sugar factory by way of lease on the model of Srirama Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Limited and the Government Order at Annexure 'H' dated 16.1.2007 deciding to lease the aforesaid sugar factory for a period of 30 years on LROT basis.2. The petitioners are the shareholders and members of the 4th respondent-Raibag Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamitha, Raibag, Belgaum District, ('for short '...
Tag this Judgment!