Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-22-2003
Reported in : (2003)180CTR(Kar)300; 261ITR435(KAR); 261ITR435(Karn)
g.c. bharuka, j. 1. this departmental appeal has been filed under section 260a of the income-tax act, 1961 (in short 'the act'), against the order dated october 31, 2001, passed by the income-tax appellate tribunal, bangalore bench 'b', in i. t. (ss) a. no. 12/bang of 1999. it pertains to a block assessment made against the assessee for the period 1989-90 to 1999-2000 made under section 158bc of the act. the substantial question of law which has fallen for our consideration is--'whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings arrived at by the tribunal for cancelling the block assessment in question are perverse being contrary to the materials on record and have been arrived at on conjectures and surmises ?'foundational facts :2. the assessee is an individual. at the material time he was the managing director of mayura hotels pvt. ltd. and swathi hotels pvt. ltd., bangalore. he was also a partner in hotel mayura in bellary and shanthakumar ganeshlal enterprises, bangalore. he was also carrying on a proprietorship hotel business in the name and style new prakash bhavan at bangalore as a karta of his hindu undivided family. he was being regularly assessed for the income derived from these concerns as also the other sources disclosed by him.3. on the basis of some information that the assessee had made unaccounted investments, search under section 132 of the act was conducted in his premises on may 27, 1998. during the search, unaccounted investments in the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-25-2003
Reported in : ILR2003KAR1555
orderpatil, j. 1. in this petition, the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 15.3.1982 passed by the 2nd respondent in no. ina. jkh. 15/79-80. further, they sought for a direction directing the 2nd respondent to transmit the application contained in annexure-b to the deputy commissioner, bangalore rural district, bangalore to be considered along with other applications.2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned government advocate for respondents 1 and 2.3. the land bearing sy.no. 63 and 147 of jakkanahalli village are darga inam lands granted for the purpose of darga of the well known saint viz., hazrath syed shah sadruddin hussaini makkan situated at nelamangala. the petitioners are the descendants of the said saint hazrath syed shah sadruddin hussaini. they are the hereditary sajjada nasheen of the darga and performing all the daily, weekly, monthly and annual services and duties of the darga including the annual gandna urs, ziyarath etc. the lands in question are the darga inam lands granted to the darga by the maharaja of mysore in the name of the manager-ancestors of the petitioners. as the lands were darga inam lands, the petitioners' father had filed application for regrant of the lands, which had come up for consideration before the land tribunal on 15.3.1982. land tribunal recorded the statement of the petitioner's father who has stated that he had never cultivated the land in question and he prayed .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-11-2003
Reported in : 2003(6)KarLJ130
orderm.f. saldanha, j.1. this civil revision petition was listed for hearing along with c.r.p. no. 1681 of 2003. the reason for this was because the education appellate tribunal has passed an order to the effect that the appeal filed to that forum is not maintainable in view of the existing position in law, the sequitur being that the petitioner would have to agitate his grievance under section 131 of the karnataka education act, 1983 before the revisional authority namely, the secretary, education of the state government. it is also relevant for me to mention the brief facts insofar as the petitioner who was an employee of the institution is alleged to have submitted a letter of resignation dated 22-12-2000 which was accepted by the management on the same day and consequently, effect has been given to that resignation. the case of the petitioner-employee is that even though the letter in question bears his handwriting and signature that it was extorted from him under very unfair circumstances and that therefore it has no effect in law. that position is contested by the management and the forum enquiring into the dispute will undoubtedly have to decide on the validity or otherwise of the letter dated 22-12-2000. the short question before this court is as to whether the tribunal was justified in having refused to exercise jurisdiction particularly, as pointed out by the petitioner's learned advocate after some amount of evidence had been recorded and the case was effectively .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-07-2003
Reported in : ILR2003KAR1421; 2003(3)KarLJ189
m.s. rajendra prasad, j.1. these appeals filed under section 4 of the karnataka high court act are directed against the order dated 6-12-2000 passed by the learned single judge in writ petition nos. 20764 and 9972 of 1993, wherein the learned single judge had dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants thereby confirmed the order of the land tribunal wherein occupancy rights in respect of lands in s. nos. 52, 53 and 67 ofmangalavarapet, channapatna taluk, had been granted in favour of r-3 herein, challenging the legality and validity of the order of the learned single judge.2. we have heard the arguments of both sides.3. sri t.r. subbanna, learned senior counsel for the appellants, strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the order of the learned single judge in writ petitions is illegal and invalid. the learned single judge had not appreciated the facts in issue in the right perspective. the material on record clearly shows that there has been ample evidence placed on record by the appellants to show that they have been the tenants in respect of the extents mentioned in the order of the land tribunal passed on an earlier occasion. the learned single judge had also not considered the applications filed by the appellants seeking permission to lead additional evidence, in the proper perspective. the material on record also shows that no full and fair opportunity had been afforded to the appellants to substantiate their contentions before the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-21-2003
Reported in : ILR2004KAR1445
orderb. padmaraj, j.1. though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both sides, the revision petition itself is taken up for final disposal and the same is accordingly disposed of by this order.2. heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 at a considerable length and carefully perused the entire case papers including the judgments of both the courts below.3. this revision petition by the defendants is directed against an order made by the lower appellate court reversing the order made by the trial court on i.a. no. 1. according to the trial court, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiffs is bad for non-issue of notice under section 125 of the karnataka co-operative societies act and accordingly it ordered for the return of the plaint. the lower appellate court having reversed that order of the trial court, the defendants are in revision before this court.4. learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned order made by the lower appellate court has contended that the main relief sought for by the respondents in their suit filed before the trial court against the society was that the society be restrained from alienating any residential sites formed in the suit land unless and until it fulfills its obligations towards the plaintiffs as per the agreement dated 10.4.1995. he contended that the nature of the relief sought for by the respondents is touching the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-24-2003
Reported in : ILR2003KAR1559; 2003(3)KarLJ316
k. bhakthavatsala, j.1. this is plaintiffs' regular second appeal filed under section 100 of code of the civil procedure, directed against judgment and decree dated 13-7-1999 passed in r.a. no. 77 of 1995 on the file of ii additional district judge, dharwad, reversing the judgment and decree dated 20-9-1995 passed in o.s. no. 3 of 1994 on the file of civil judge (senior division), haveri. 2. though notice was issued to the respondent by rpad, the same was returned with an endorsement, stating that the defendant refused to receive the rpad. 3. when the case was listed for admission, the learned single judge of this court, on 30-5-2000, admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law.-whether the appellate court was correct in law in directing the appellant-plaintiff to approach the rent court for eviction even though respondent-defendant denied title of the appellant to the suit property and his relation with him as a tenant? 4. the records of the lower court and first appellate court are before this court. 5. for the purpose of convenience and better understanding, the appellants and respondents to this appeal are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendant as arrayed in the original suit. 6. the brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs leading to the filing of the regular second appeal may be stated as under.-on 12-1-1994, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-18-2003
Reported in : III(2003)BC123; 114CompCas703(Kar); 2003CriLJ2568; 2003(5)KarLJ108
k. sreedhar rao, j.1. all these petitions are considered together for passing a common order since a common question of law and fact is involved. under the present petitions, the petitioner contends that he is facing prosecutions under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881, in several places and in particular at bangalore, in more than 850 cases in different courts.2. relying upon the decision of the supreme court in the case of v.k. jain v. union of india : (2000)1scc709 counsel contends that the petitioner is prepared to give the undertaking as envisaged under ratio and thus prays for exemption under section 305 of the criminal procedure code from his regular appearance on all the hearing dates.3. the petitioner submits that he is the director of the company. therefore, under section 305 of the criminal procedure code seeks an exemption. the facts of the decision of the supreme court indicate that the innumerable prosecutions launched against the petitioner under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act were sought to be quashed under article 32 of the constitution of india on the ground that the petitioner is unable to go to different courts, where the cases are pending. considering the practical hardships, the supreme court laid down the ratio granting exemption from personal appearance on the following conditions :'(1) a counsel on his behalf would be present in the particular court on days when his case is taken up.(2) he will not dispute his identity .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-08-2003
Reported in : ILR2004KAR2320; 2004(1)KarLJ565
orderr. gururajan, j.1. the petitioner-miss sharda maruthi patil is before me challenging annexure-h, dated 12-1 -2000 with a further direction to permit the petitioner to work as lower division clerk (ldc) in addition to monetary benefits.2. the petitioner was appointed as ldc in the year 1984. she was transferred to pune on permanent duty basis. her father, sri maruthi patil was a sipai in the military service and was a commandant officer in the second world war. he retired from service with injuries to his body and leg amputated and her mother was old lady. in those circumstances, she made a request and her request was accepted and was transferred to belgaum. she has made some averments/allegations against one sri r.s. kahtri, her principal in the school. according to her, sri kahtri developed ill-will against her and went on giving her problems after problems. he apprehended her as lunatic person and she was sent for treatment by the principal. she could not perform her duties for various reasons which she has given in detail in the petition. it is unnecessary for me to refer to all these facts for the purpose of this case.3. according to the petitioner, the principal was insisting upon the petitioner to leave the school and resign the post. the petitioner declined. she was abused in the month of january 2000 and that she was threatened that she would be made to suffer criminal proceedings in case if she does not resign. thereafter, she was compelled to resign in terms of .....Tag this Judgment!