Karnataka Court March 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Padma and ors. Vs. Smt. R. Manjula and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4857; 2002(3)KarLJ476
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. The facts of the case in brief leading upto this appeal are as follows: The parties would be referred to with reference to the rank before the Probate Court. P and SC 6/91 was filed by petitioners 1 and 2 averring that first petitioner is the legally wedded wife of late K.H. Ganesh and second petitioner is the son born out of the said wedlock and K.H. Ganesh died on 6-5-1990 at Kothigere of Kunigal Taluk while he was in service as a clerk in Government High School, Nagasandra, K.G. Temple, Gubbi Taluk. It is averred that by suppressing the facts and misrepresenting the Court, respondents 1 to 3 filed an application for issue of Succession Certificate 6/90 and obtained the same on 24-1-1991 and the said certificate has been obtained by defective subsistence in the petition, that is giving wrong information about the relationship with the deceased, giving false suggestion and concealment of facts and making untrue allegations and petitioners are the only persons ...
Prestige Housewares (India) Limited and anr. Vs. Prestige Estates and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)KarLJ232
1. This appeal under Section 72(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'Act') arises out of and is directed against the order dated 2-7-1999 passed by the Copyright Board at Bangalore in Case No. 6 of 1996. 2. The essential facts of the case in brief leading up to this appeal are as follows: The parties would be referred to with reference to their rank before the Copyright Board. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 50 of the Act on 6-7-1995 with prayers to: (a) Suspend the Copyright Registration No. A-51400/91, dated 25th February, 1992 obtained by the respondent. (b) Revoke/cancel the Copyright Registration No. A-51400/91 dated 25th February, 1992 obtained by the respondent. (c) Award costs of the proceedings and pass such further or other orders as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thereby render justice. It is averred in the petition that the trademark 'Prestige' was originally registered under No. 141602 in Class 21 in th...
Rajeshwari Metallurgicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial T ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: [2003]129STC344(Kar)
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. Sri T.K. Vedamurthy, learned Government Pleader, is directed to take notice.2. Though this writ petition is posted for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties is taken up for hearing and disposed of by this order.3. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the first respondent not to take any coercive steps to recover the arrears of tax pursuant to the order of assessment dated May 8, 2000 against the petitioner.4. In this petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents not to enforce demand notified in terms of the notice dated May 8, 2000 copies of which have been produced as annexures A and A1 for the purpose of recovery of taxes assessed for the assessment year 1993-94 till the disposal of the second appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the order of assessment and also the order made dismissing the appeal filed challenging the said o...
Thirumala Distilleries, Tumkur Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2889; 2002(3)KarLJ629
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner prays:'(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order of the third respondent in No. DTCR. 89/94-95, dated 3-6-1995 vide Annexure-G;(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order of the second respondent in No. ECS/44/APP/99, dated 19-8-1999 vide Annexure-J;(iii) Grant all other consequential reliefs including costs deemed fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity'.2. The impugned Annexure-G is the order dated 3-6-1995 of respondent 3-Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Tumkur District, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as 'R-3'), by which the petitioner-Distillery is directed to pay the total amount of Rs. 21,18,989/- towards the excise duty, sales tax and surcharge, for the unaccounted shortage of 11,624 litres of rectified spirit from the petitioner-Distillery, on the assumption that ...
Bharat Beedi Works Ltd. Vs. Kunhambu K. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant259
1. These Writ Appeals are filed by M/s Bharat Beedi Works Ltd. - auction purchaser and the Vijaya Bank respectively against the order dated 5/ 6-7-2001, passed in W. P. No. 12994/1999, wherein the learned single Judge has set aside the public auction held on 30-3-1999, quashed the confirmation of sale of the property in question in favour of the auction purchaser made on 4-2-2000 and directed the auction purchaser to deliver the possession of the property back to Mrs. Laxmi Kutty - Respondent No.2 - Petitioner No.2. 2. The necessary facts in W. A. Nos. 4623-25/2.001 are that at the instance of the first Respondent, the 5th Respondent-Vijaya Bank had issued bank guarantees to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs to three different financiers in order to purchase some timber. The said financiers though invoked the said bank guarantee did not ensure supply of timber, which made the 1st respondent liable to pay the entire amount covered by the bank guarantees. The 2nd Respondent, owner of property No....
Smt. Beepathumma Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, Mangal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4013; 2002(5)KarLJ153
ORDERN.K. Patil, J. 1. With the consent of the learned Counsels for the petitioner and the respondents, the matter is taken up for hearing.2. The petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 27-10-1998 and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 22-5-2001, has presented this writ petition.3. The case of the petitioner is that she had acquired the Moorage right in respect of Sy. No. 16/5 measuring 0.03 acre of Karnad Village, Mangalore Taluk, by a registered sale deed dated 8-12-1965. In pursuance of the said sale deed, mutation entries were sanctioned by the Competent Authorities and thereafter, the name of the petitioner was entered in the RTC extract. Subsequently, the petitioner had sought for permission for conversion of the Schedule property for residential purposes. The said permission was granted by the Competent Authority for converting the schedule property and sub-divided as 0.02 acre and 0.01 acre a...
Bharat Beedi Works Limited Vs. Kunhambu K. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas676(Kar); ILR2002KAR2289; 2002(6)KarLJ133
1. These writ appeals are filed by M/s. Bharat Beedi Works Limited, auction purchaser and the Vijaya Bank respectively against the order dated 5/6-7-2001, passed in the case of K. Kunhambu and Anr. v. Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore and Ors., W.P. No. 12994 of 1999 (GM-DRT), DD: 5/6-7-2001 wherein the learned Single Judge has set aside the public auction held on 30-3-1999, quashed the confirmation of sale of the property in question in favour of the auction purchaser made on 4-2-2000 and directed the auction purchaser to deliver the possession of the property back to Mrs. Laxmi Kutty, respondent 2, petitioner 2. 2. The necessary facts in W.A. Nos. 4623 to 4625 of 2001 are that at the instance of the first respondent, the 5th respondent-Vijaya Bank had issued Bank guarantees to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs to three different financiers in order to purchase some timber. The said financiers though invoked the said Bank guarantee did not ensure supply of timber, which made...
Shashidhar R. Ullagaddimath Vs. the Government of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3282; 2002(6)KarLJ499
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a dealer in arms and ammunitions for the past several years and had been provided with licences in Form Nos. 11 to 14 issued under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short).2. Petitioner contends that such licences had been granted and renewed to him periodically and the last of such renewal enured in his favour for the period ending 31-12-2000.3. The petitioner had sought for renewal of all the four licences in his favour by making suitable applications in the forms to the Competent Authorities. It appears, in respect of licences issued in Form Nos. 11 and 12, the State Government is the Competent Authority to consider the question of renewal and in respect of licences issued in Form Nos. 13 and 14, the Commissioner of Police, Hubli, where the petitioner carries on his business, is the Competent Authority.4. The petition averments indicate that whereas the licences in Form Nos. 13 ...
C. Doddappa Vs. Tungabadra GramIn Bank and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC43; 2003(1)KarLJ448
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner, an officer in Tungabadra Gramin Bank, Gabbur, is challenging Annexure-H bearing No. PW STF PER 345/96-97, dated 25-5-1996 passed by respondent 1, and communication bearing No. PW IR4779/1999-2000, dated 30-12-1999, Annexure-L and the order dated 28-12-1999, Annexure-L1 in this petition.2. Petitioner was working as a Branch Manager in the respondent 1-Bank. He met with an accident on 24-12-1988 while on duty. He was hospitalised on more than one occasion. He remained absent from duty for a total period of 498 days. The absence was regulated by the Bank as follows:'1. 26-12-1988 to 28-1-1989, 34 days sick leave on half pay; 2. 29-1-1989 to 16-3-1989, 47 days privilege leave; 3. 17-3-1989 to 22-12-1989, 281 days extraordinary leave on loss of pay; 4. 7-3-1990 to 20-7-1990, 136 days'. 3. Respondent 1 is sponsored by the Canara Bank which is a nationalised Bank. In the Canara Bank the period of absence when injury or accident occurs to an employee when he...
Jaswinder Singh and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2154; ILR2002KAR2213; 2002(4)KarLJ334
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. The petitioner/accused are the undertrial prisoners in S.C. No. 566 of 1999 on the file of City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, charged for committing offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 307, 323, 324, 342 and 428 read with Section 120-B of the IPC and Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 read with Section 3 of the Arms Act. During the course of trial it appears that one of the defence Counsel Sri Hasmath Pasha filed retirement memo making some personal allegations against the Special Public Prosecutor. Under the directions of this Court, the trial of this case was held on day-to-day basis and the outer limit to dispose off this case was fixed to be by the end of March 2002. The defence Counsel withdrew his participation from 23-11-2001. Thereafter no progress has been made in recording of the evidence, as some of the petitioners/accused were not represented by Counsel. 2. The present petitioner-accused submitted a grievance petition to the Hon'ble Chief Just...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »