Karnataka Court January 2002 Judgments
P.K. Tiwari Vs. the Registrar, Gulbarga University, Gulbarga and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3340; 2002(3)KarLJ220
Kumar Rajaratnam, J.1. The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 16-3-1998 passed in C.P. No. 885 of 1996 and the order dated 21-11-1996 passed in W.P. No. 382 of 1995 by the learned Single Judge has filed this writ appeal.2. The facts very briefly are, the appellant was working as Director of Physical Education on temporary basis in the 1st respondent-University since 1984. The University issued notification dated 8-6-1994 notified application for the post of Director of Physical Education and with respect to other posts to be filled up by the University. The appellant applied for the post in order that he may be selected on a regular basis.3. The University after considering the case of the contesting respondent selected the appellant and appointed him as Director of Physical Education in the University by an order dated 19-11-1994. The 2nd respondent, who had also applied for the post challenged the selection of the appellant in W.P. No. 382 of 1995.4. The learned Single Judg...
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkataraman Vs. L.F. Malavalli and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3071; 2002(3)KarLJ204
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. The petitioner before us who is a Senior Citizen complains, and perhaps with some justification, that he has been agitating his complaints before the Courts for the last nineteen years and he has stated with some level of bitterness, that despite all the effort put in by him particularly since he appears in person, that the results have been far from satisfactory. To summarise, the petitioner sought to prosecute the accused who are promoters of the Jayanthi Apartments Building and he had alleged that in the course of the transactions that the accused had committed several offences mainly centering around cheating and criminal breach of trust as also under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership of Flats Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Flats Act'). If one peruses the course of litigations, the substratum of the petitioner's grievance is that obviously certain influences were at work from the side of the accused which was why strange orders seem to emerge. I...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Rangaiah and anr. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Tiptur Sub-divi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1897; 2002(5)KarLJ188
A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The appellants are the purchasers of the land granted to respondent 3. They are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by them challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tiptur and the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the Act' for short) restoring the land in favour of the grantee, respondent 3.2. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.3. The land was granted to the original grantee on 12-1-1965 and the saguvali chit was issued on 13-12-1965. The sale having taken place on 9-3-1970, the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 would apply to the facts of the case. Rule 43-G(4) of the said Rules reads as under:'(1). .....(2). ......(3). .......(4) Where the grant is made free of cost or when the grant is made at the price which is less than the market value the grant sha...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Sri Ramakrishna Enterprises
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Kar)570
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.The question of law which requires our consideration is as follows:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the building used for the purpose of hotel business was a 'plant' for the purpose of depreciation.'2. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee was carrying on hotel business having both lodging and boarding section. It claimed depreciation on the hotel building by treating it to be a plant which was rejected by the assessing officer, but on appeal the same was granted by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the said order, the department preferred an appeal to the Tribunal, which confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Under these circumstances, at the instance of the department, the present reference was made to this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. We have heard Shri, Seshachala, learned counsel appearing for ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Prabhu Vs. Sangam Corporation (Finance and Investment), Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2142; ILR2002KAR2198; 2002(2)KarLJ572
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. 27176 and 27177 of 2000 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petitions are as follows:The respondent-Corporation has filed private complaints under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the petitioner had borrowed certain amounts from the complainant and in this regard towards the repayment of the same he had issued two cheques - one dated 15-2-2000 for Rs. 1,60,000/- and the other dated 22-2-2000 for Rs. 1,52,200/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Malleswaram, Bangalore. It is alleged that when the cheques were presented for collection the same were returned with endorsements 'insufficient fund'. It is contended that in spite of issuing legal...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpa Shivaprasad Vs. C.G. Sarojamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3512; 2002(3)KarLJ12
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. By the impugned order, the Court below has directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court fee on the ground that his suit for permanent injunction relates to an immovable property wherein the defendants have disputed his title.2. Section 26(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, reads as under:'26. Suits for injunction.--In a suit for injunction-- (a) where the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, and (i) where the plaintiff alleges that his title to the property is denied, or (ii) where the issue is framed regarding the plaintiff's title to the property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on Rs. 1,000/-, whichever is higher'. 3. From a reading of the above provisions, it is clear that in either of the two situations contemplated under Section 26(a) (i) or (ii), the Court fee payable has to be computed with reference to the market value ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivasubramanyam Vs. State Through Chamarajanagar East Police Station
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1998; 2002(3)KarLJ280
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. Petitioner, an investigative journalist is knocking the doors of this Court on the foundation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India by way of a bail petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the following factual matrix.2. The petitioner was arrested by the Rampur police on 20-11-2001 in Crime No. 100 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Section 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the course of investigation a voluntary statement was obtained from the petitioner. In that statement he has stated that he would show the hidden explosives by Sri Veerappan and his associates in the year 2000 in the forest area and also the gun and bullets kept by one Ramesha, an associate of Sri Veerappan. On the basis of this statement, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Rampur police station along with panch witnesses accompanied the petitioner and they were taken to Konganakaduvu forest area.3. Petitioner showed the spot where the hidden...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Devamma Vs. Somegowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)KarLJ433
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned Counsels for both the parties.2. The petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in RP No. 66 of 1998, dated 15-11-2000. The petitioner is claiming that she is the owner and in enjoyment of Sy. No. 17/7 measuring 35 guntas situated in Chandupura Village, Maddur Taluk on the alleged palupatti said to have been executed by the 1st respondent and another his brother on 20-2-1985. She has filed an application for sanction of mutation before the Village Accountant on 10-2-1997 and contended that the said application has been duly signed by the 1st respondent and his another brother. In pursuance of the said application filed by the petitioner dated 10-2-1997, the Village Accountant has issued notice to the concerned authorities and when he has not received any objections within 30 days from the date of filing of the application, the Village Accountant...
Tag this Judgment!Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Vs. G.N. Vishwanathappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2300; 2002(6)KarLJ48
ORDER1. This contempt proceeding has been directed against Advocate Sri G.N. Vishwanathappa who is a lawyer practising at the Sidlaghatta Bar. The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class forwarded a complaint to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, in which he stated that an incident took place in the open Court on 7-3-2000 while the FDP case bearing No. 1 of 2000 was called out. We do not need to go into the details of the incident but suffice it to say that the learned Advocate is supposed to have behaved and used language that was disrespectful and offensive to the Presiding Officer who concluded that his behaviour is actionable under the Contempt of Courts Act. The learned District Judge forwarded the complaint to the Registrar General of the High Court because the High Court is the Competent Authority to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act. The proceedings were placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice who directed that suo m...
Tag this Judgment!Millipore India Private Limited Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant280; 2002(6)KarLJ372
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. I.A. I is allowed. Amendment is permitted.2. The petitioner in this case is calling in question the order at Annexure-L, dated 15-10-2001 issued by the 2nd respondent. The facts leading to this petition are as under:The petitioner, a registered company is carrying on its activities in the manufacture of high quality Water Purification Systems. It has Head Office at Bangalore. M/s. Millipore SAS BP 307, 78054, Saint Quentin Yveliens Cedex, France, are having factories at France and United States of America and they are joint venture partners in the petitioner-company. The petitioner has filed Annexure-A series certificates issued by the Pollution Control Boards. The petitioner has also installed Water Purification Systems in institutions such as Indian Institute of Science, National Institute of Oceanography, Semi Biotech Research Laboratory, National Institute of Ocean Technology, School of Bio-Technology etc. The petitioner has filed Certificates Annexure-B ser...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »