Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR2894
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. The petitioner is the Adhyaksha of the 2nd respondent Taluk Panchayat 1/3rd of the total number of members of the Taluk Panchayat gave a notice to the Adhyaksha expressing their intention to move the motion of no confidence as against the petitioner. This notice was received in the office of the Adhyaksha on 31.3.2003, as seen from the records produced by the learned Government Pleader. On the very same day, it appears, the said notice was brought to the notice of the petitioner. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner has not taken any steps to call for the special meeting to consider the motion of no confidence. But the Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent by his notice dated 8.4.2003, called for the meeting of the Taluk Panchayat fixing the date of meeting as 16.4.2003. On 16.4.2003, the motion was passed by majority. This decision of the Taluk Panchayat on the motion of no confidence moved against the petitioner has been questioned by the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(5)KarLJ76
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. The petitioner is the Adhyaksha of the 2nd respondent-Taluk Panchayat. 1/3rd of the total number of members of the Taluk Panchayat gave a notice to the Adhyaksha expressing their intention to move the motion of no confidence as against the petitioner. This notice was received in the office of the Adhyaksha on 31-3-2003, as seen from the records produced by the learned Government Pleader. On the very same day, it appears, the said notice was brought to the notice of the petitioner. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner has not taken any steps to call for the special meeting to consider the motion of no confidence. But the Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent by his notice dated 8-4-2003, called for the meeting of the Taluk Panchayat fixing the date of meeting as 16-4-2003. On 16-4-2003, the motion was passed by majority. This decision of the Taluk Panchayat on the motion of no confidence moved against the petitioner has been questioned by the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4080
ORDERKumar, J. 1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. They are running a factory at premises bearing No. 48/ N, KIADB Industrial Area, Doddaballpur, after obtaining the necessary permissions from various statutory authorities including the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board for the last 8 years. The petitioner has obtained the required consents under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. The said consents which are given are valid upto 30.6.2003. The petitioner company is manufacturing Declaim phosphate (DCP) which is an important ingredient in the feed for livestock and in fact also for human beings. The petitioners have secured contracts from Karnataka Milk Federation Ltd. and Kerala Co-op. Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. for supply of their products. One of the wastes that is being generated by the petitioner company is a product called 'waste rock' phosphate which is edible and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2003Kant476
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. They are running a factory at premises bearing No. 48/N, KIADB Industrial Area, Doddaballapur, after obtaining the necessary permissions from various statutory authorities including the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board for the last 8 years. The petitioner has obtained the required consents under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Air (Prevention' and Control of Pollution) Act. The said consents which are given are filed up to 30-6-2003. The petitioner company is manufacturing Di-Calcium Phosphate (DCP) which is an important ingredient in the feed for livestock and in fact also for human beings. The petitioners have secured contracts from Karnataka Milk Federation Ltd. and Kerala Co-op. Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. for supply of their products. One of the wastes that is being generated by the petitioner company is a product called 'waste rock' phosphate which is edib...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(6)KarLJ387
ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. The petitioners, who are appellants in Cri. A. No. 358 of 2002 on the file of the Appellate Court, 'have challenged the impugned order dated 10-7-2002, by which the sentence imposed by the Trial Court against them is suspended on condition that they shall deposit 20% of the total fine amount before the Court below (Trial Court) within the period of one month from that date and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court below.2. According to the petitioners, who were accused in C.C. No. 30459 of 2000 on the file of the 13th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore City and who are appellants before the Appellate Court, in view of the provision contained in Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court was not right in asking them to deposit 20% of the total fine amount, and relied on a decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of V. Prasada Rao v. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4339
ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. The petitioners, who are appellants in Crl.A.No. 358/02 on the file of the Appellate Court have challenged the impugned order dated .10.7.2002, by which the sentence imposed by the Trial Court against them is suspended on condition that they shall deposit 20% of the total fine amount before the Court below (Trial Court) during the period of one month from that date and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court below.2. According to the petitioners, who were accused in CC No. 30459/00 on the file of the 13th Addl. C.M.M. at Bangalore City and who are appellants before the Appellate Court, in view of the provision contained in Section 357(2) of Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court was not right in asking them to deposit 20% of the total fine amount, and relied on a decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of V. PRASADA RAO v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND Anr., 2002 Crl.L.J....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005ACJ959; ILR2003KAR3203; 2003(5)KarLJ520
Manjunath, J. 1.This appeal is by the insurer-cum-owner of the tractor bearing No. KA-14/M-1579/1552 R-1 & 2 are the legal heirs of one K. Hanief who died in a road traffic accident on 19.10.1996 at about 8-30 p.m. near Seegebagi Cross, Badravathi. On account of death of K. Hanief, R-1 & R-2 presented claim petition claiming compensation from the appellant and R-3 & 4 in this appeal. Accordance to the claimants, deceased was proceeding on his Luna bearing No. KA-14/E-1763 from Bhadravathi to Seegebagi. He was proceeding by on serving traffic rules keeping his vehicle on the left side of the road when he reached Janatha Rice Mill and Halappa Saw Mill, a tractor bearing No KA-14/M-1579/1552 and trailor bearing No KA-14/M-1552 was also proceeding in the same direction behind Luna, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailor, tractor dashed against Luna which was proceeding in its front and Hanief died on the spot.2. According to the claimants, deceased was r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 3(2005)ACC581
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the insured-cum-owner of the tractor bearing No. KA 14-M 1579/1552. R-1 and R-2 are the legal heirs of one K. Hanief who died in a road traffic accident on 19.10.1996 at about 8.30 p.m. near Seegebagi Cross, Bhadravathi. On account of death of K. Hanief, R-1 and R-2 presented the claim petition claiming compensation from the appellant and R-3 and R-4 in this appeal. According to the claimants, deceased was proceeding on his Luna bearing No. KA 14-E 1763 from Bhadravathi to Seegebagi. He was proceeding by observing traffic rules keeping his vehicle on the left side of the road. When he reached Janatha Rice Mill and Halappa Saw Mill, a tractor bearing No. KA 14-M 1579 and trailer bearing No. KA 14-M 1552 was also proceeding in the same direction behind Luna, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer, tractor dashed against Luna which was proceeding in its front and Hanief died on the spot.2. According to claimants, d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005ACJ1793
T.S. Thakur, J.1. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, has allowed M.V.C. No. 438 of 1996 in part and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,98,000 with interest at 6 percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit towards compensation for the death of Bramarambika, wife of the appellant No. 1 and mother of the rest of the appellants who fell victim to a road accident. The claimants-appellants have sought a suitable enhancement of the amount of compensation in this appeal.2. The deceased Bramarambika was travelling in a Tempo bearing registration No. KA 06-4961 on Bangalore-Tumkur Road. When the said Tempo reached near Boodihal Gate, a bus owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with the respondent No. 2 National Insurance Co. Ltd. came from the wrong side and dashed against the said Tempo in which the deceased was travelling. The collision so caused resulted in serious bodily injuries to the deceased who was removed to the hospital for treatment where she died. In due course...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2005]276ITR208(KAR); [2005]276ITR208(Karn)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the certified copy of the impugned order is produced in I. T. A. No. 202 of 2003.2. In the light of the said submission, I. A. No. 1 is allowed, production of certified copy dispensed with.3. In this appeal, filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the appellants have called in question the correctness of the order dated December 26, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore.4. Heard Sri Seshachala, learned counsel appearing for the appellants on the merits.The substantial question of law that arises for our consideration in this appeal is as hereunder :'Whether the amount of 'kist' payable by the assessee to the State Government can be allowed as a deduction even when this sum has not been actually paid by the assessee in view of the restriction imposed under Section 43B of the Act ?' 5. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispu...
Tag this Judgment!