Karnataka Court February 2003 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.
Rayanagouda Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)KarLJ450
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the order dated 1-6-2001 passed by the first respondent as per Annexure-D, by which mutation entry has been made in favour of respondents 2 to 5 on the basis of the compromise decree entered into between the parties in the Civil Court.2. The first ground of attack is that the said order is' against the petitioner showing him to be dead. Secondly, it is contended that by the impugned order mutation entry has been made in the names of respondents 2 to 5 in respect of property bearing Sy. No. 110/2, when actually the said property has not fallen to their share. Thirdly, on the ground that though the right of respondents 3 to 5 to the properties in dispute is not in question, admittedly, they are not in possession of those properties and therefore their names could not have been entered in Column 12 of RTC. If only the petitioner had been served with a notice, he would have appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and w...
Syndicate Bank Vs. Wilfred D'Souza
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant337
Nayak, J. 1. Both the writ appeals are directed against the same order of the learned single Judge dated 8-11-2000 in W.P. No. 5234 of 1998. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 7537/00 is the Syndicate Bank, whereas in Writ Appeal No. 32/01, the appellant is one Wilfred D'Souza. Sri Wilfred D'Souza was the petitioner and the Syndicate Bank was the respondent in the writ petition. By the order impugned in these writ petitions, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned communication of the Syndicate Bank dated 7-1-1998. 2. The background facts leading to filing of these writ appeals be noted briefly as under :-- 3. The writ petitioner is the Managing Director of the Company called M/s. Souza and Lewis Fisheries India (Pvt.) Ltd., having its registered office at Hampanakatta, Mangalore. The said company borrowed huge amounts from the Consortium Bank comprising of Syndicate Bank, Canara Bank and Vijaya Bank. The Syndicate Bank is a member of the consortiu...
Akki Virubhadrappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)KarLJ403
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 24-10-1979 in Case No. 686 of 1976 (Annexure-F) passed by the 2nd respondent has presented this writ petition.2. The case of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of Sy. Nos. 12 and 13 measuring 8.55 acres and 22.62 acres respectively situated at Bukkasagar. He is in actual possession and enjoyment of the same. Be that as it may. The 3rd respondent herein claiming to be the tenant has filed Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 4 acres 27 guntas in Sy. No. 12 and 11 acres 31 guntas in Sy. No. 13 on 20-12-1976. The said application was registered. The Land Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on records granted occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent by its order dated 24-10-1979. The Land Tribunal held that the petitioner himself has filed Form 11 declaring his total holdings of the lands. In the said declaration, the petition...
Laxmappa Kakappa Nelagund Vs. the Land Tribunal and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4096; 2003(2)KarLJ647
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 15-6-2002 made in KLR/T/SR/554(A) passed by the Land Tribunal, Bagalkot.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a tenant cultivating Sy. No. 106 measuring 12 acres 10 guntas situated at Chikkarashellikeri Village, Bagalkot Taluk. He has filed an application on earlier occasion before the Tribunal claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land in question and the occupancy right was granted in favour of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the 2nd respondent has filed writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 3065 of 1997. The said petition was allowed and the order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with a direction to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the Tribunal has issued notice to the petitioner and respondent 2 and after considering oral and documentary eviden...
BHEL Employees' Association Vs. Union of India (UOi) and Ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Kar)412; [2003]261ITR15(KAR); [2003]261ITR15(Karn)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. Since, in all these petitions common questions have been raised and arose for consideration, all these petitions along with a few other connected petitions were taken up for hearing together.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7405 of 2002 and Writ Petitions Nos. 8891 to 9021 of 2002 is the BHEL Employees' Association which is a registered trade union under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trade Unions Act'). It is claimed by the petitioner in the said petitions that the petitioner-association represents the interest of the workmen numbering around 1,100 employed in the Electronics Division of the Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the BHEL') ; and these petitions have been filed by the association on behalf of the members who are residing in the BHEL quarters and also in the colony belonging to the BHEL.3. The first petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7205 of 2002 is Bharat Earth Movers Officers' Guil...
The Karnataka Power Corporation Limited and anr. Vs. G.J. Fernandez
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR533(Kar); 2003(3)KarLJ6
1. This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28-10-2002 passed in W.P. No. 16188 of 2002, whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the order in CMP No. 91 of 1999 and permitted the respondents to urge the contention that Clause 29(c) and (e) are not arbitral clauses, before the Arbitrator.2. The 1st appellant is a Government of Karnataka undertaking engaged in the business of generating power and for the purpose of generating power the 1st appellant has constructed huge hydroelectric projects as well as thermal power stations. For the civil and structural work relating to the Units 5 and 6 of the said thermal plant the 1st appellant invited tenders during February 1996 and in response to the same the respondent submitted its offer and the same was accepted. The parties entered into an agreement dated 25-10-1996.3. After the respondent herein started performing its part of the contract, certain disputes arose regarding certain terms of the contract. The ...
K.S. Shivanna Vs. State Through Tiptur Town Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2140; 2003(3)KarLJ115
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant has challenged the order dated 29-11-2002 passed by the Trial Court directing the appellant-surety to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in Court as penalty in default to issue FLW through the Superintendent of Police, Tumkur.2. The appellant stood surety for an accused charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 376, 511 and 377 of the IPC and has executed a personal bond for release of the accused on bail with guarantee that he will be appearing before the Court on the next dates without fail for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. It is seen that after releasing the accused on bail right from 8-5-2000, the accused has remained absconding and not available for the prosecution or trial in spite of taking coercive steps of issuing Non-Bailable Warrant. As such the Trial Court had to issue notice to the surety, who on appearance undertook to produce the accused but again in spite of giving sufficient time and opportunity, d...
K.N. Kulkarni Vs. Karnataka Housing Board
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KarLJ498
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner in this petition who was working as Assistant General Manager in the respondent-Karnataka Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') in this petition has called in question the correctness of the order dated 13th December, 2002, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-K to this petition, passed by the Commissioner of the Board reducing the petitioner from the rank of Assistant General Manager to the rank of Manager by way of penalty on account of certain charges of misconduct levelled and found proved against him.2. The respondent-Board framed as many as five charges by means of Articles of Charges. The Enquiry Officer, on the basis of the materials available on record, has found that except Charge 3 all the other four charges were proved against the petitioner, by means of his report dated 14th March, 2002, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-G to this petition. The Commissioner of the Board, on consideration ...
Corporation of City of Mangalore, by Its Commissioner Vs. Saptagiri Ho ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2410
ORDERVeerabhadraiah, J. 1. This revision is by the Corporation of the city of Mangalore questioning the order of the learned District Judge, Mangalore in M.A.No. 17/94 dated 30.6.2000 allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore dated 17.3.1994 in Ref.No. M.A. 2/93-94 restoring the assessment order of the Taxation Appeal Committee. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Sapthagiri Hotels (P) Ltd., are the owners of three premises bearing Nos. 3.3.19, 3.3.43 and 33.44 situated at Kavoor, Mangalore in which the petitioners were carrying on their business of non-vegetarian restaurant, lodging as well as running a conference hall. The premises in question was originally coming within the Village Panchayat limits of Kunjathbail and assessed for property tax. According to the Village Panchayat Act and Regulations, the area in which the premises were located was transferred to the limits of the Corporation area. Thereafter, the Corporation issu...
Ranganatha Associates and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Kar)441
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. Petitioner M/s Ranganatha Associates is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsements at Annexure-G, dt. 17th June, 1999, and Annexure-J, dt. 5th Aug., 1999, in addition to seeking a direction to the respondents to adjust or set off the refund due of Rs. 92,87,365 for the asst. yr. 1989-90 against the tax payable of Rs. 31,11,623 under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, for the asst. yr. 1990-91. Other consequential prayers are also sought for by the petitioners.1.2. Facts in brief: Petitioner is carrying on business as excise contractor. He is an assessee in terms of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). For the asst. yr. 1990-91, petitioner filed a return of income on 5th Feb., 1991, declaring his income as Rs. 1,16,22,373 and taxes of Rs. 49,27,210 (advance tax and TDS) were paid and an order of assessment was made on 31st March, 1993, by the Asstt. CIT, Central Circle-IV, Bangalore, determining the total income at Rs. 3,09,700 and assessed to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »