Karnataka Court November 2003 Judgments
Mysore Fruit Products Limited and ors. Vs. Fruits and Vegetables (Spl. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ340; ILR2004KAR426; 2004(1)KarLJ461; 2009(3)KCCR1580
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This petition is filed assailing the order passed by the 7th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City in C.C. No. 16908 of 2000 (PCR No. 195 of 2000) by order dated 23-9-2000 and also the order passed by the Principal City Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in Cri. R.P. No. 60 of 2001 confirming the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, by his order dated 13-7-2001.2. The brief facts are that the 1st petitioner is a Public Limited Company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1955. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the employees of the 1st petitioner-company being the General Manager and the Export Officer respectively, wherein the said company is engaged in processing food products and as such it falls within the definition 'trader' as defined under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short). On inspection, on 7-8-1999 the official...
Tag this Judgment!T. Palaksha Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Chitradurga Sub-division a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KarLJ595
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 12-6-2003 passed by the 1st respondent, vide Annexure-B has presented this writ petition.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:The petitioner is the elected member and Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat, 2nd respondent. When things stood thus, Upadhyaksha and three other members of the Grama Panchayat have gave a complaint to the 1st respondent on 12-11-2002. In pursuance of the said complaint, the 1st respondent has initiated proceedings and issued notice to the petitioner. After the receipt of the said notice, petitioner has filed his reply on 21-12-2002. After the receipt of the reply, 1st respondent had called for reports from the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat and the Junior Engineer of the Zilla Panchayat Engineering Division. In turn, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has submitted his report/documents on 20-12-2002 and on 16-1 -2003. The Junior Engineer has submitted his report o...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Construction Corporation Limited Vs. the State of Karn ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR844; [2004]138STC75(Kar)
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner in this petition is the Karnataka Construction Corporation Ltd. which is a Government of Karnataka undertaking and a registered dealer under the provisions of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In this petition filed under Section 23(1) of the Act, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the Order dated 3rd June 2003 made in STA No. 790 of 2002 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), wherein the Tribunal had confirmed the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Commissioner'), dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the order made by the Assessing Officer rejecting the claim of the petitioner that a portion of the work shown in the composition does not fall under Section 5B of the Act.2. The facts leading to this petition can be...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Prasad and anr. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Kar)588; ILR2004KAR319; [2004]265ITR415(KAR); [2004]265ITR415(Karn)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. These two petitions involve almost same/similar facts and hence a common order is passed.2. Facts in W.P. No. 35343/2003 are as under:The petitioner, M/s Padmapriya Oil Mills carries on the business in edible oils. The petitioner for the asst. yr. 1997-98 ought to have filed return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act on or before 31st Aug., 1997. He filed return of income on 31st March, 1998, declaring an income of Rs. 8,530. It was beyond the statutory period in terms of the provisions of the IT Act. The said return was filed on 31st March, 1998 and is a voluntary return according to the petitioner and it was filed before issuance of any notice in terms of Section 142 or 148 of the Act. He paid the taxes payable in terms of the returned income under Section 140A of the Act.3. On 15th Oct., 1998, the ITO conducted a survey under Section 133A of the Act in the petitioner's business premises. According to the petition averments, no materials were found eithe...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. K.C. Lakshmaiah and anr. Vs. Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4986; 2004(2)KarLJ107
H.L. Dattu, J.1. Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore, is an autonomous body and is registered as a society under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Governing Council constituted by the Government of Karnataka is the authority responsible for the achievement of the objects for which the Institute was made autonomous by the Government of Karnataka vide its order dated 27.12.1979.2. The Governing Council has approved for adoption of the Pay and recruitment Rules and Miscellaneous Provisions in respect of the employees of the Institute in its meeting held on 22.8.1981 and the same is published vide its official memorandum dated 28.1.1982. The Rules are known as the Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology (Pay, Recruitment, Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules 1981. Apart from others, the Rules provides for direct recruitment of the personnel for th...
Tag this Judgment!A.G.D. Reddy Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR609
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Petitioner, who is working as Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale - I, in the respondent Bank is before this Court aggrieved by the orders passed by the appellate authority dated 27.2.1997 in confirming the orders passed by the disciplinary authority dated 31.1.1995. By the said order, the disciplinary authority of the respondent Bank has imposed a punishment of 'reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale I' as envisaged under Rule No. 49(e) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules and further, has treated the period spent by the delinquent officer under suspension from 18.8.1990 till the date of his reinstatement as suspension only.2. Brief facts are:Petitioner had joined the services of the respondent Bank on 28.6.1970 as C1erk. Subsequently, he was promoted as Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale I on 1.10.1979. During the period from June 1986 to June 1988, petitioner was working as Field Officer at ITI Ancillary Industria...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Gopinath Vs. Tribunal for Election Disputes of the Institute of C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant188; [2004]49SCL720(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioner is a member of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India, the second respondent in this writ petition. The Institute is a body corporate incorporated under Section 3 of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') Under Section 9 of the Act, the management of the affairs of the Institute required to be performed by the Institute under the provisions of the Act is entrusted to a Council comprising of not more than twelve persons elected by members of the Institute from amongst the Fellows in the manner provided for and from the regional constituencies as notified in this regard by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. It also comprises of not more than four nominated members nominated by the Central Government.2. The manner of election to the Council to elect the elected representatives is provided under Section 10 of the Act. The Regulations framed under Section 39 of the Act which provide for the...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary to Government, Revenue Depart ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR270; 2004(2)KarLJ370
ORDERChandra Shekaraiah, J. 1. This Writ Petition is by the State Government challenging the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) passed in appeal No. 542/ 1997 disposed of on 3.9.1998.2. The Deputy Commissioner has passed an order on 9.5.1994 levying the compounding fee at Rs. 18,78,525/under Rule 107 of the Land Revenue Rules, (hereinafter referred to as Rules) since the respondent has used the agricultural land for non agricultural purpose without obtaining the permission as required under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The respondent, after he came to know of the said order, filed a petition for review of the said order. The said petition was also dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 22.1.1996. As against this order the respondent preferred an appeal No. 102/1996 before the KAT. In the said appeal the Tribunal declined to grant any interim order. This has made the petitioner to come to this Court by way...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rajanabi Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1090
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner a lady, who is aged 72 years, was drawing family pension as per Rule 3 of the Karnataka State Freedom Fighters' Welfare Rules, 1969, for about year till 25-10-2000. This is a pension payable to a dependant family member of a freedom fighter, who was drawing such freedom fighters pension under the Karnataka State Freedom Fighters' Welfare Rules, 1969.2. Under the impugned order dated 25-10-2000, copy at Annexure-H, such family pension in favour of the petitioner has been discontinued with immediate effect and the petitioner being aggrieved by this, has approached this Court, invoking writ jurisdiction.3. Petitioner's husband late Mugatasab was a person who had been granted freedom fighters pension under the Rules from the year 1980 as per an order dated 27-8-1992. Petitioner's husband had produced relevant documents in support of his claim for drawing freedom fighter pension at the time, when he had made his application on 13-12-1980.4. The sai...
Tag this Judgment!Boraiah Alias Pujari Boraiah Vs. State by Thalak Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2531; 2004(1)KarLJ117
1. The appellant herein is the convicted accused in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1999 by the Additional Sessions Court, Chitradurga for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, accused 1 is the husband of accused 2 and father of accused 3. Deceased Thippaiah is the uncle of Accused 1. The house of the accused and deceased were adjoining each other. Deceased Thippaiah after dismantling his hut obtained permission for construction of the house from the Panchayath and was preparing to dig the foundation for the construction of the house on 22-9-1998 at Gejjiganahalli. On that day, at about 7.30 p.m. Accused 1 picked up quarrel with the deceased on the ground that the deceased Thippaiah was encroaching upon his site. In the meanwhile, P.W. 1-Shanthamma came to the rescue of her husband Thippaiah. Accused 2 and 3 also came to the spot. Accused 1 took the axe --M.O. 1 from accused 2 assaulted on the head of deceased at the instigation of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »