Karnataka Court November 2003 Judgments
Bangalore Club Vs. the Entertainment Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR643
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner Bangalore Club is before me seeking to declare that the religious celebration of the new year eve as outside the purview of the Entertainment Tax Act.2. Petitioner is member club extending cultural and social facilities to its members. Petitioner club right from the day it was established by the English People is predominantly Christian oriented club. Right from the inception the petitioner is celebrating the new year eve to ring out the old and to ring in the new. The celebration is not open to public but regulated by a strict dress code and others wherein the members and the relatives and guests can join. It is a religious function. Members start gathering from the evening to witness the new year eve and they start parting after the function is over at the stroke of midnight. The members are required to pay to make up all the arrangements like lighting, music, decoration etc. Petitioner collects the amounts to recoup the cost of the new year eve fun...
Tag this Judgment!Pharmed Chemicals Limited and ors. Vs. Sainath Agencies
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2253; 2004(2)KarLJ422
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8-5-2000 passed IV Additional C.M.M., Bangalore in C.C. No. 8141 of 2000 (PCR No. 49 of 1997), whereby, the learned Magistrate rejected the 'B' final report submitted by the I.O. and directed the office to register the case against the revision petitioner-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 120-B of the IPC and to issue summons. Therefore, the revision petitioner herein has come up before this Court mainly on the ground that the 1 st petitioner received the chemical components and closed down the business in the middle of the year 1997 and the further allegations made by the respondent-complainant attracts the provision under Sections 406 and 415 of the Cr. P.C. read with Section 120-B of the IPC.2. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels appearing on both sides and perused the records.3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners t...
Tag this Judgment!Atria Convergence Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Karnata ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR901
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioner is M/s. Atria Convergence Technologies Pvt. Ltd., and others are before me challenging the Constitutional validity of Section-4G of the Karnataka Entertainment Act, 1958 in terms of Amendment Act No. 5/2002 as unconstitutional, arbitrary and illegal. They also challenge the consequential demands raised by them.2. Facts in brief are as under:The petitioners are multi system operators and are engaged in the business of receiving telephone signals from Private TV Channels. They distribute the signals to the Cable TV Operators. They do not transmit the television signals directly to the viewers. The Cable TV Operators use their own infrastructure and transmit signals for the purpose of viewing the programs telecast by various agencies. The petitioner collects towards his service, certain payments from cable operators. According to the petition averments, it is only the Cable TV Operator who provide entertainment to the customers and no entertainment a...
Tag this Judgment!Jyothi Gas Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Labour Enforcement Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1261; ILR2004KAR164; 2004(2)KarLJ162; (2004)IILLJ659Kant
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. In these two petitions the petitioners who are the Chairman and Managing Director of the Jyothi Gas Ltd. and Branch Manager respectively have assailed the order of taking cognizance by the JMFC., in C.C.No. 1106/98 and 1107 of 1998, that the so called complaint has to be filed under Section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). alleging violation of Section 12(1) of the Act.2. In the inspection report submitted by the Senior Inspector of Labour Enforcement Department said to be appointed under Section 28 of the Act, said to have inspected the concern of the petitioners on 22.7.98 and found that the petitioners were executing the work of bottling of LPG through 24 contract labourers without obtaining any licence; one more complaint was filed alleging violation of the provisions of the Act and rules framed therein in not displaying the notice showing the wage period, place and time ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Siddagangappa Vs. Smt. R. Shailaja
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant244; I(2004)DMC690; 2004(2)KarLJ74
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is filed by the husband who has lost before the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore (for short, the 'Family Court'), by a dismissal of his petition seeking the relief of dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the parties on 15-5-1980.2. The appellant filed M.C. No. 317 of 1991 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the 'Act'), seeking dissolution of marriage and grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty said to have been meted out to him by his wife. In support of his case, the husband enumerated an instance and incident against the wife, branded her as an unchaste woman, keeping illicit relationship with one Mahadeva. The appellant had made known of this incident to his in-laws, who, it is alleged, advised his wife, who in turn repented for the same and agreed to mend her ways. It is also alleged that on 17-2-1991, the wife took her two children and left the matrimonial home, without any reason, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. Mehrunisa Begum
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant261
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The defendant husband, being directed to pay maintenance at Rs. 1,300/- p.m. to the plaintiff-wife by the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Raichur (for short the 'Family Court') by Judgment and order dated 11-3-2003 passed in O.S. No. 11/02, has preferred this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short the 'Act').2. The facts, in brief, as stated in the plaint and set out in the impugned Judgment are as under :The parties are legally wedded, the marriage having taken place on 26-4-1987 at village Talmari, District Raichur, in accordance with the customs prevailing in their community. At the time of marriage, the parents of the plaintiff-wife are said to have paid a sum of Rs. 80,000/- in cash, five tolas of gold and other costly household articles to the defendant. Subsequently, the defendant husband is said to have extracted some more money from the parents of the plaintiff-wife on the pretext of purchasing plots/houses at Kulsumbi colo...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ahalyamma Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-24-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KarLJ221
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Memo is filed by Sri S. Vasanth Madhav, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeking permission to retire from the case. In the memo the Counsel has wrongly stated thus.--'The petitioner may be permitted to retire from the case'.The petitioner cannot be permitted to retire from the case as sought in the memo. Only the Counsel may be permitted. Since the petitioner is represented by another Counsel, Sri S. Vasanth Madhav is permitted to retire from the case.2. Though in the writ petition the petitioner prayed to declare the order dated 16-8-1975 as illegal, subsequently an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC is filed seeking amendment of the writ petition and to add additional prayer. In the additional prayer the petitioner is seeking to quash the order at Annexure-P, dated 30-4-1975 passed by the Land Tribunal. Hence, the amendment application is allowed. Counsel for the petitioner shall file amended petition in two weeks.3. The writ petition cannot b...
Tag this Judgment!Apoline Marcel D'Souza Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-24-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KarLJ332
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner-operator is challenging Annexure-C a notice dated 26-6-2003 issued by the third respondent. Petitioner has also challenged the notice at Annexure-D, dated 4-7-2003. Petitioners' further prayer is for a direction to consider the request of the petitioner without insisting upon production, of vehicles in terms of the prayer 4 at para 21.2. Facts in brief are as under:Petitioner is the owner of contract carriage vehicles bearing registration Nos. MH 01/L, 6967, 6968, 6973, 7499, 7699 and 6905 and is operating his service in terms of the permits granted by the State of Maharashtra. Petitioner has filed a registration certificate of one such vehicle in terms of Annexure-A. Each one of the vehicles is covered by the contract carriage permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act. Permit was granted by the authorities of the State of Maharashtra. Petitioner is paying quarterly tax regularly in respect of his vehicles in the State of Maharashtra at Rs. 1,100/- ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Borappa and anr. Vs. the State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary, Urba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR5127; 2004(2)KarLJ425
ORDERPatil, J.1. The petitioners seeking a direction in the nature of interaliaousting 2nd respondent from the post of Member, MUDA, after quashing the Notification dated 20th January 2003 bearing No. NAE:MYAPRA: 2001 vide Annexure-A, in so far as it pertains to the 2nd respondent is concerned, have filed these Writ Petitions. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in these petitions is that, the 2nd respondent has been appointed by the Government as a Member to the 3rd respondent-MUDA, under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, in the category of 'Architect Member', by a Notification dated 20.1.2003 vide Annexure-A. The 2nd respondent is not a qualified person in the said category; he is not a qualified Architect and he is not a registered practitioner. When this fact has been brought to the notice of the concerned authorities and requested them not to permit the 2nd respondent to continue as a member of the 3rd respondent as per the Notification issued by the Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pushpa Vs. N.C. Venkatappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KarLJ251
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC is preferred by the tenant against the order dated 13-11-2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Mysore in Revision (Rent) No. 142 of 1994 setting aside the order dated 22-6-1994 passed by the learned I Munsiff, Mysore dismissing the eviction petition filed by the landlord under Clause (h) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('old Act' for short).2. Heard the learned Counsels for both parties.3. During the pendency of this revision the old Act was repealed under Section 70 of the Act, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('the Act' for short). By virtue of Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the Act, all pending proceedings have to be continued and disposed off by the Court in accordance with the provisions of the Act.4. For the sake of brevity and convenience the parties are referred to as 'landlord' and 'tenant' in the course of this order.5. The landlord filed the petition for evict...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »