Karnataka Court July 2001 Judgments

Susheela (Deceased) by L.Rs and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Oth ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2003ACJ512; ILR2001KAR4035

ORDERThe Court 1. The first petitioner-Smt. Susheela was the wife and the second petitioner is the mother, of one M.S. Patil. During the pendency of this petition, since the first petitioner has expired, her two minor sons-Master Shankar and Master Shambu were brought on record and they are represented by their guardian and grandmother, the second petitioner. 2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents togrant and release a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in favour of the petitioners on account of the brutal murder of the said Patil on 15th September, 1993 by a gang of wood smugglers, when he tried to catch hold of them while he was guarding the Government forest as a Forest Guard. 2-A. It is the case of the petitioners that late Patil was married to the first petitioner on 1st May, 1987, and as a result of the wedlock, two sons, the ...

Lakkappa Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, Bangal ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2001KAR5665; 2001(6)KarLJ96

ORDERThe Court1. Elections to the 3rd respondent-Motagondanahalli Gram Panchayat was held on 6-8-2000 and after counting, the Returning Officer recorded in Form 31 the number of votes secured by each candidate as per Annexure-A. Some persons presented applications at 1-30 p.m. for recounting of votes and the Returning Officer allowed the same. After recounting, it was found that petitioner secured 367 votes and 4th respondent secured 370 votes as against 371 and 369 votes mentioned in Annexure-A. The same was announced in Annexure-D. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the declaration of result of 4th respondent in Annexure-E and to direct the Returning Officer to declare the petitioner as elected.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner has got alternative remedy under Section 19 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, the petitioner has approached this Court as the Returning Officer should not have entert...

N.P. Kudva Vs. Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2001KAR4254; 2001(6)KarLJ304

ORDER1. An employee officer of the respondent-Syndicate Bank questions in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the legality or otherwise of the orders made by the disciplinary authority dated 16-6-1994 and the orders made by the Appellate Authority dated 14-9-1994.2. Brief facts are:While petitioner was working as a Chief Manager in Faridabad Branch of respondent-Syndicate Bank, he was served with a charge memo dated 15-7-1987 alleging that he had committed certain acts of misconduct during the period 1-8-1983 to 18-3-1986. The charge memo had been replied and an enquiry officer had been appointed to enquire into the allegations made in that charge memo. After completion of the enquiry proceedings, the disciplinary authority of the Bank had imposed a punishment by his order dated 30-1-1991 and that order has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The same has reached finality, in the sense petitioner has not questioned the decision made by the Appellate Author...

Widia (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Kar)393; ILR2001KAR4445; [2001]251ITR577(KAR); [2001]251ITR577(Karn)

D.V. Shylendra kumar, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), made at the instance of the assessee, the Bangalore Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards conducting seminars and exhibitions would fall under the purview of Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax, Act, for the purpose of disallowance on the ground that such expenditure was of the nature of advertisement and sales promotion expenses and when in any case, the two sums of Rs. 1,34,687.88 and Rs. 5,978.60 out of the said expenditure were clearly of the nature of payments made to hotels ?'2. The brief facts, as could be made out from the statement of the case and other material on record are that for the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee, which i...

Abdul Mazid Babalal Nadaf and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2001KAR3755; 2001(6)KarLJ487

ORDERAshok Bhan, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short, the 'Tribunal'), dismissing their Application Nos. 2993 to 3010 of 1996, dated 3-2-1998, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking quashing of the impugned order of the Tribunal and issuing of an appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may be to the effect that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of seniority in their respective posts with effect from the respective dates their juniors belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs) and other Backward Tribes were appointed on regular basis under the Karnataka State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Tribes to Class III Posts) (Special) Rules, 1977 (for short, the '1977 Rules') notwithstanding the regular appointment of the petitioners subsequently under the Karnataka State Civil Services (Special Recruitment of Local Candidates) Rules, 1986 (for short...

Sheif Mujeeb Vs. the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Bangal ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. Pursuant to notification dated 26-10-2000 issued by the Director of Mines and Geology inviting applications for grant of quarrying lease of building stone, the petitioners submitted their applications on the same day in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 39 of Gollahalli Village in Bangalore South Taluk. By the impugned Notification at Annexure-C, dated 22-12-2000 the quarrying lease was granted in favour of the 4th respon-dent in W.P. No. 12157 of 2001 (who will be referred to as such hereinafter). Aggrieved by the same the petitioners have filed these writ petition complaining that their applications have not been considered properly along with the other applications as required under Rule 23(2)(v) of the Rules.2. The learned Counsels who are appearing for the petitioners submit that the applications of the petitioners were in time but the Competent Authority did not give priority on the basis of first-come-first but 4th respondent has been granted the quarrying lease in contrav...

Venkateshappa Vs. State by Mulbagal Police

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2001CriLJ4322; II(2001)DMC588

H.N. Narayan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, dated 7th November, 1998. The learned Sessions Judge, by the said Judgment, convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, with default clause and he was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. This judgment is challenged on many counts as could he seen from the grounds pleaded in the appeal memo filed by the appellant.2. The Police Inspector of Dowry Prohibition Cell, C.O.D., Bangalore, laid the charge-sheet against the appellant and two others, alleging the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and also for the offence under Sect...

The Accountant-general (a and E), Karnataka, Bangalore and Others Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2001(5)KarLJ537

ORDERAshok Bhan, J.1. Accountant-General (A and E), Karnataka, Bangalore and two others have filed this petition questioning the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short, 'the Tribunal') dated 10th March, 1998 in Review Application No. 8 of 1998 (Annexure-A) and the order passed in Contempt Petition No. 40 of 1998, dated 10-11-1998 wherein the petitioners have been directed to comply with the orders passed by the Tribunal Annexure-B.2. Facts.--S. Srinivasan (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') filed O.A. No. 906 of 1996 before the Tribunal seeking a writ of mandamus directing the petitioners to re-employ him and to give the benefit of temporary status and all other benefits flowing from conferment of such a status. It was averred in the application that he was employed as a canteen worker in September 1991 in the Accountant- General's Office Canteen, Bangalore and continued to work as such till 15th July, 1996. On 15th of July, 1996 he was oral...

Mic Cement Limited, Bangalore and anr. Vs. the Appellate Authority for ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2001(6)KarLJ60

ORDERThe Court 1. The petitioners in these petitions are challenging Annexure-H, an order passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi, dated 23-12-1997. 2. The petitioners state in the petition that the first petitioner, has suffered losses due to factors beyond its control. The matter was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short, 'the Board'). The Board, by an order dated 10-6-1992, declared the Company to be a sick company and appointed the Industrial Development Bank of India as operating agency to examine the viability and for preparing a scheme for revival and rehabilitation. The Industrial Development Bank of India, in turn, in its report doubted the long term viability of the petitioner-Company to which the petitioner-Company objected. The BIFR, by its order dated 16-12-1993 formed a prima fade opinion to wind up the petitioner-Company concluding that the efforts of the Industrial Development Bank o...

Meer Naveed Khan Vs. State by Gulpet Police, Kolar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2001KAR4269; 2002(1)KarLJ102

1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioner-accused is prosecuted by the respondent-police in E.C.C. No. 11 of 2000 before the learned Magistrate on the charge of he having committed an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short), as he being the dealer in petrol, was found on 6-1-1988 at about 10.00 a.m. within the limits of the respondent-police station, selling adulterated petrol to the public at his petrol bunk, situate at Kolar, in contravention of Clause 2(e) and 2(i) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (prevention of Malpractices in Supply and Distribution) Order, 1990 ('the Order of 1990' for short).3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the owner of the said petrol bunk and that he was the dealer as defined in Sub-clause (c) of Clause 2 of the said order and that the samples of the petrol stored in the bunk were seized by the police on 6-1-1988 at about 10.00 a.m. and the same were subjected to ch...