Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003CriLJ3245; 2003(4)KarLJ231
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J. 1. All these petitions filed by different petitioners pertain to the prosecution of the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Section 19(a) of the Seeds Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the respective Assistant Director of Agriculture and Seeds Inspector. As common questions of law arise for consideration in these petitions, all the matters are taken up together for consideration and disposal by this common order. 2. The brief facts which are common in all these cases are that the petitioners, who are accused in the respective criminal cases or the special cases pending before the respective Judicial Magistrate First Class or the Sessions Judge, are the dealers, distributors of producers of various seeds which are governed by the Act. All these petitioners have been prosecuted for the contravention of Section 6 of the Act read with the penal provisions of Section 19 of the Act on the ground that, when the premises of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR2395
ORDERBannurmath, J.1. All these petitions filed by different petitioners pertain to the prosecution of the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Section 19(a) of the Seeds Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the respective Assistant Director of Agriculture and Seeds Inspector. As common questions of law arise for consideration in these petitions, all the matters are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts which are common in all these cases are that the petitioners, who are accused in the respective Criminal Cases or the Special Cases pending before the respective Judicial Magistrate First Class or the Sessions Judge, are the dealers, distributors of producers of various seeds which are governed by the Act. All these petitioners have been prosecuted for the contravention of Section 6 of the Act read with the penal provisions of Section 19 of the Act on the ground that, when the premises of the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(3)ARBLR70(Kar); 2003(4)KarLJ284
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 29-9-2000 passed by the XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 10503 of 1995 on I.A. No. II filed by the defendant-respondent herein, directing the parties to the suit to the arbitration for due adjudication of the issues in dispute between the plaintiff and defendant and staying the proceeding of the suit in the meanwhile. The facts of the case in brief leading to this revision are as follows.--The parties would be referred with reference to their rank before the Trial Court. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 10503 of 1995 on the file of the XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, on 31-5-1995 seeking for recovery of Rs. 17,75,498/- with costs, averring that, there is an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on 10-8-1992 and defendant represented to the plaintiff that they would supply 50 cubic metres of granite blocks every month for a period of six months ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)4; I(2004)BC467; ILR2003KAR4241; 2004(1)KarLJ553
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J. 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by the accused praying for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No. 29047/ 2001 on the file of the XII Additional C.M.M. Bangalore.The brief facts of the case are as follows:-2. The respondents/complainant has filed a private complaint in P.C.R. No. 240/2001 (now numbered as C.C. No. 29047/2001) before the learned Magistrate, Bangalore, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., to initiate criminal action against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the ground that the petitioner had engaged the services of the respondent for execution of civil works and in this regard, the petitioner was due to the respondent a sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs. In this regard the petitioner has issued a cheque dated 14.11.2000 for a sum of Rs. 1,95,600/- drawn on the Indian Overseas Bank, Bangalore, towards discharge of the aforesaid liability in part. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2004]138STC57(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. An interesting question with regard to interpretation to be placed on Section 17(6) of the Sales Tax Act in the light of the notification under Section 8A is raised in the case of hand. The petitioner made an application in form 8-AA in terms of Rule 8-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for short 'the Rules') to take the benefit of an assessment under Section 17(6). Returns were submitted and details were furnished to the first respondent. The first respondent proposed action to complete the assessment of the petitioner for a normal assessment without reference to composition application. The second respondent issued a notification dated December 19, 1996 thereby total exemption was extended on the turnover involved in the execution of works contract relating to Information Technology Park Limited.2. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner on an earlier occasion. In the light of the order of this Court in the writ petition, the first respondent issued...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003CriLJ3250; ILR2003KAR2488; 2003(5)KarLJ412
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Heard Sri Ponnappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. S.P.R for the State. The matter is taken up for final hearing by consent of both the advocates.2. The petitioners herein who are accused in S.C.No. 94/02 pending before the Sessions Court, Madikeri, Kodagu District, have filed this petition seeking transfer of C.C.No. 1730/02 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge, Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C., Madikeri, Kodagu to the Sessions Court, Kodagu at Madikeri and further prayed that both these cases shall be tried simultaneously in quick succession as case and counter case.3. Sri Ponnappa has made available the investigation reports in both the cases.4. I have perused the records in both C.C.No. 1730/02 and S.C.No. 94/02.5. The facts in brief in S.C.No. 94/02 are that:Respondent No. 2 in this petition namely Janardhana lodged a complaint before the Madikeri Rural Police Station on 25.4.2002 complaining that on that day at about 5.00 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR2682; 2004(3)KarLJ122
Rangavittalachar, J.1. The two residents of Dollar Scheme Layout in Madiwala Bangalore have filed these two Writ Petitions for a writ of mandamus to, the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Bangalore Development Authority for revoking the sanctioned plan and for a direction to demolish the college building constructed in the two sites by the 3rd respondent herein and for quashing of the special permission granted by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA for short) to establish a college.2. They contend in the petition that the Dollar Scheme Layout in Madiwala is a residential colony notified as such by the BDA in its Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP for short). They have constructed two residential houses in premises No. 4 and 5A at 36th Main, II Cross, BTM I Stage. The adjacent two sites bearing No. 2 and 3 which were allotted by the BDA purely for purposes of constructing residential houses by the allottees, was purchased by 3rd respondent herein from the allottees. Subsequently, h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2003Kant322; ILR2003KAR2162; 2003(4)KarLJ385
Rangavittalachar, J. 1. Petitioner has sought for quashing of the quarrying lease granted in respect of 10 acres of land in Sy. No. 60 of Handanahalli Village, Mallavalli Taluk, Mandya District to the 3rd respondent and the rejection of his application for grant of quarrying lease in an extent of 13 acres in the same survey number, and other reliefs. 2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are as under : Petitioner contends that he made an application on 14.7.1994 for grant of quarrying lease in respect of 13 acres of government land in Sy. No. 60 of Handanahalli Village, Malavalli Taluk. The said application came to be rejected in the first instance by an order dated 17.9.1998 on the ground that the said land forms part of gomal. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing WP 34901/ 2000 which came to be allowed and remanded for reconsideration by an order dated 7.11.2000. After remand, the application was processed and the revenue author...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR2452
ORDERShylendra Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner is a Wakf Institution registered under the provisions of Wakf Act, 1954, and is being administrated by its Administrator. It functions under the provisions of Wakf Act and supervision of Karnataka State Board of Wakf.2. The petitioner institution had initiated action against the second respondent who was a tenant in respect of a portion of the property owned by the petitioner for evicting that tenant under the petitioner for evicting that tenant under the provisions of Karnataka Public Premises (Evictions of un-authorized occupants) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as Act). The competent officer after receipt of the complaint issue notice to the second respondent and held an enquiry which terminated in the eviction order dated 27.4.2001 (Copy at Annexure-A).3. In respect of such an order, the person aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 10(1) of the Act and the appeal lies to the District judge having jurisdiction over the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(4)KarLJ274
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The petitioner is a Wakf Institution registered under the provisions of Wakf Act, 1954, and is being administered by its Administrator. It functions under the provisions of Wakf Act and supervision of Karnataka State Board of Wakf.2. The petitioner-institution had initiated action against the second respondent who was a tenant in respect of a portion of the property owned by the petitioner for evicting that tenant under the provisions of Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The competent officer after receipt of the complaint issued notice to the second respondent and held an enquiry which terminated in the eviction order dated 27-4-2001 (copy at Annexure-A).3. In respect of such an order, the person aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 10(1) of the Act and the appeal lies to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area.4. The second respondent who has ...
Tag this Judgment!