Karnataka Court August 2003 Judgments
Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN607(Kar)
Vishwanatha Shetty, J.The appellant in this appeal is a Banking Company governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and registered under the Companies Act, 1913. The appellant assailed the Constitutional validity of the provisions of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in Writ Petition No. 5926 of 1997. The learned single judge by means of his order dated 18-6-1999 dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal is presented.2. Challenging the constitutional validity of the Interest Tax Act, Sri G. Sarangan, learned senior counsel appearing alongwith Sri S. Parthasarathi urged four contentions. Firstly, he submitted that the impugned Act has to be struck down as being beyond legislative competence of the Parliament. Elaborating this submission, the learned counsel pointed out that the legislative competence for the impugned Act has to be necessarily referable to article 366(29), Entry 82 of List-I of Schedule-VII of the Constitution, ...
Tag this Judgment!Tippanna Vs. Ghanashyam
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant446; ILR2003KAR4764
Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Although the case is at the stage of admission, the parties assisted the Court with pleadings and certified copies of the documentary and oral evidence and argued for final disposal of the matter on merits.2. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 4.11.2002 in R.A.No. 79/1996 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), at Jamkhandi arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated 18.7.1996 in O.S.No. 70/1986 on the file of the Addl. Munsiff at Jamkhandi.3. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant not to disturb the status-quo of the party-wall, not to put up any windows in the party - wall and not to put any weights on the party to the detriment of the interests of the plaintiff. The defendant contended that the disputed wall is the exclusive wall and not a party - wall and further the window in the disputed wall is in existence prior to purchase of the buildi...
Tag this Judgment!State by Wilson Garden Police Vs. Mahaboob Pasha and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KarLJ507
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. We had directed that Cri. R.P. No. 1051 of 2002 be listed along with this criminal appeal as it is directed against the same order. We have heard the learned Advocate in support of this revision petition. It is true that he has pointed out several irregularities that were committed in the course of the trial, but in our considered view, none of these are serious enough to really vitiate the proceedings. However, we accept his submission to the extent that the record does indicate that the order of acquittal was unjustified. However, since under Sub-section (3) of Section 401 of the Cr. P.C. this Court cannot convert the order of acquittal into one of conviction in a revision petition, we are inclined to pass necessary orders in the main appeal, i.e., Cri. A. No. 39 of 2003, which is filed by the State.2. On a review of the record, we hold that there is sufficient evidence oral as well as medical to bring the charge against all the seven accused. We had afforded the...
Tag this Judgment!Murugan and ors. Vs. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant171
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioners claim to be residents of Channapatna town who have put up their huts near the railway line and the area where they have been fixed their tents has come to be known as 'Dr. Ambedkar Railway Platform Slum' and also known as 'Tamilian Colony Railway Plat Form' and there were about 800 such persons living in the area and there are about 140 huts or houses. It is also claimed that the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board who is impleaded as 3rd respondent to this writ petition has declared the area where the petitioners are residing as a slum area as per Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act'). Petitioners claim that they have been living in the huts put up by them for the past several years, that their names figured in the voters list of the area coming under Channapatna Legislative and Channapatna Parliamentary constituency, that they have been so occupying the place for about 40 years or above ...
Tag this Judgment!Ninge Gowda Vs. the Sub-divisional Officer, Pandavapura Sub-division a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)KarLJ372
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. The first prayer to declare Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 as unconstitutional, cannot be granted as the constitutional validity of the said Act has been upheld long ago. 2. The second prayer is to quash the impugned orders at Annexure-B and C. In Annexure-B the Assistant Commissioner held that the sale of land bearing Sy. No. 11 of Koppa Village in Nagamangala Taluk in favour of the petitioner as null and void and directed restoration of the land to the legal representatives of the grantee. The said order is affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in Annexure-C. It is not in dispute that the land was granted on 13-7-1967 to the petitioner's vendor. Saguvali Chit was issued on 14-3-1975. The period of non-alienation was 15 years. Petitioner purchased the same on 21-12-1990. Though the Assistant Commissioner has found that 15 years period remains upto 14-3-19...
Tag this Judgment!Yashoda Vs. the Director, Karnataka Government Insurance Department an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ122; ILR2003KAR4582
ORDERShylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner's husband was working as a Beekeeping Organiser in the Industries & Commerce Department, Z.P. Wing, Mandya. Petitioner's husband being an employee of the State Government, was under an obligation to take out a policy of insurance on his life during his tenure of employment and this is governed by the Karnataka Government Servants (Compulsory Life Insurance) Rules, 1958 ('the Rules' for short). Under Rule 6 of these Rules, insurance is compulsory for Government servants and a premium amount of 6 1/4 % of the average salary of the employee is required to be remitted to the Government for issuing a life assurance policy under these Rules. Under the Rules, there is an option given to an employee to have a life assurance policy over and above this amount also and on payment of higher premium.2. During his life time, the said employee, the husband of the petitioner had taken out three life assurance policies. Claim was not settled in respect of the Polic...
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkatashamappa Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary, Departmen ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4496; 2004(1)KarLJ239
ORDERRangavittalachar, J.1. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board - 2nd respondent herein had acquired 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 32, among other lands, situate at Anneshwara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devenahalli Taluk for formation of international air port at Devanahalli. This land is claimed by the petitioner as belonging to him on the basis of various sale deeds and the entries in the revenue records apart from his name being notified in the preliminary and final notification as the Kathedar. However, the acquiring authority refused to pass any award. This action was question by the petitioner by filing W.P. 6001/2002. Learned Single Judge who heard the matter, by his order dated 21.9.2002, quashed the endorsement refusing to pass the award and directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to conduct an enquiry and pass award in accordance with law. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Land Acquisition Officer conducted an enquiry and passed an order on 24.12.2002 Annexu...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka, by Chief Secretary and ors. Vs. Basavaraj Guddappa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4252; ILR2003KAR3589
Kumar Rajaratnam, J.1. The State and more particularly the Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigation, Karnataka Lokayukta, Belgaum has preferred this writ appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.7.2000 in W.P. No. 42407/1995.2. The petitioner in the Writ Petition was a public servant. He was the Chief Engineer (Communication and Building), Public Works Department, Dharwad. The allegation against the public servant was that while he was working in the PWD during the period 2/7/1963 to 30/11/1990 had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs. 15,10,977/-. The first information report was registered against the public servant under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the P.C. Act)3. The case was registered by the Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigation, Karnataka Lokayukta, Belgaum. The Police wing of the Lokayukta on registration of th...
Tag this Judgment!Marinayaka Vs. Syed BadruddIn and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3690
ORDERSrinivasa Reddy, J. 1. This revision can be disposed of on a pure question of law without going into the merits of the matter. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in the course of this order with reference to their rank before the appellate authority. 3. Syed Badruddin and Syed Ibrahim, the appellants before the Land Reform Appellate Authority challenged the order of the Land Tribunal, Mysore in KLRM No. 2406/74-75 and 2401/74-75 dated 15.3.1984 under which the Tribunal had granted occupancy rights over an area of 1 acre and 11-1/2 cents each in Sy. No 39 of Veeranagere village in favour of Syed Asthak Peer and Kulle Gowda respectively under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Sy. No. 39 of Veearanagere village originally belonged to one Jainulla Sab, the great grand-father of the appellants and after his death the appellants have been enjoying the said land without dividing the same. The appellants learnt that respondents 6 and 7 had filed applic...
Tag this Judgment!Doddappa S. Kalaginamani Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)KarLJ450
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. By consent of the parties, this writ petition is heard on merits.2. The petitioner was appointed as the Chairman of the Yadgir Town Planning Authority by order dated 21-11-2000. Pursuant to this order, he assumed the Office of the Chairman on 23-11-2000. The State Government has now issued an order dated 22-7-2003 appointing the 3rd respondent as Chairman in place of the petitioner. This order is under challenge by the petitioner in this writ petition.3. At the time of preliminary hearing, I being satisfied that there cannot be any appointment without removing the petitioner from the Office of the Chairman, I ordered emergent notice regarding Rule and granted an interim order of stay. Subsequently, the State Government has filed an application for vacating the stay. After hearing, I passed the order dismissing the application filed by the State Government for vacating the interim order, as the State Government had not produced any order removing the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »