Karnataka Court September 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.
The Chief General Manager and ors. Vs. K. Gururajan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1002
R.V. Raveendran, J1. Respondent was working as Assistant Director (R&E;) in the office of the first petitioner herein-Chief General Manager (Karnataka Telecom Circle), during 2000-2001. First petitioner issued an Articles of Charge dated 16-4-2001 to the respondent charging him as follows:Sri K Gururajan while functioning as Assistant Direct (R & E) o/o Chief General Manager, Telecom, Karnataka Circle, Bangalore has illegally participated in the 'Hunger Strike' on 30-10-2000 in front of the Office of the Chief General Manager Telecom, Karnataka Circle, Bangalore in violation of Rule 7(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.By the above act, Sri K Gururajan while functioning as Assistant Director (R&E;) O/o Chief General Manager Telecom, Karnataka Circle, Bangalore has exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant contravening Rule 3(1) (ii) and 3(1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964'2. Respondent filed objections to the charge memo on 26-4- ...
Shankaragouda Yallanagouda Patil (Since Dead by L. Rs.) and anr. Vs. H ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant283
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This case calls for interpretation of static provisions of law to keep in tune with the changing market and commercial conditions of the society. The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, although, brought into effect from the year 1976, but most of the provisions are borrowed from the erstwhile enactments of the yore. The idea of Municipalities and Corporations came to be evolved with rapid urbanisation as consequence of industrial revolution. The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act defines the word 'Market' at Section 2(19) and the regulation of private markets are dealt at Sections 371 to 377. The relevant provisions for consideration in this case would be the definition of the 'market' and Sections 371, 372, 374, which are extracted hereunder for convenient reference:Section 2(19):'Market' includes any place where persons assemble for the sale of, or for the purpose of exposing for sale, livestock, food for livestock, meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, flowers, ...
Papaiah Alias Papa and anr. Vs. State by Holenarasipura Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)KarLJ253
ORDERRajendra Prasad, J.1. This appeal by the accused filed under Section 374 of the Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 7-3-1998 passed in S.C. No. 36 of 1990 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, wherein the learned Sessions Judge had convicted accused 1 and 2-appellants, for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- i.d., to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the said offence, challenging the legality and validity of the said judgment.2. The Court has heard the arguments of Sri V.K. Bhat for M/s. Kumar and Kumar, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellants, and Sri M. Marigowda, Additional State Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State of Karnataka.3. The Court has perused the material on record and has given its anxious thoughts over the rival contentions raised.4. From the material on record, it is seen t...
Avasarala Automation Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Kar)402
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The appellant in this appeal (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a domestic company carrying on business relating to manufacture of special purpose machinery.2. Facts in brief are as hereunder:For the asst. yr. 1996-97, i.e., year ending 31st March, 1996, the assessee filed its return of income on 29th Nov., 1996, declaring the total income of Rs. 1,54,33,960 (Rupees one crore fifty-four lakhs thirty-three thousand nine hundred sixty only). In the return filed, the assessee had claimed that it had purchased machinery/equipment from Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the APSES'), by virtue of an agreement of sale deed dt. 29th Sept., 1995, for a total consideration of Rs. 1,60,18,854 (Rupees one crore sixty lakhs eighteen thousand eight hundred fifty four only); and on the same day, by means of a separate lease deed, it had leased back the said machinery/equipment to APSEB for a monthly rent of Rs. 2,19,498.35 (Rupe...
Papaiah @ Papa and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Holenarasipura ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4330
ORDERRajendra Prasad, J. 1. This Appeal by the accused filed under Section 374 Cr. P.C. is directed against the Judgment dated 7-3-1998 passed in S.C. No. 36/1990 on the file of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, wherein the learned Sessions Judge had convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 Appellants, for the offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- i.e, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the said offence, challenging the legality and validity of the said Judgment.2. The Court has heard the arguments of Sri V.K. Bhat for M/s. Kumar & Kumar, learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellants, and Sri M. Marigowda, Addl. SPP, on behalf of the State of Karnataka.3. The Court has perused the material on record and has given it anxious thoughts over the rival contentions raised.4. From the material on record, it is seen that the accused-appellants had faced prosecut...
M.S. Shambulingappa and ors. Vs. High Court of Karnataka, Rep. by Its ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4511
ORDERGopala Gowda, J. 1. The Petitioners in these Writ Petitions are members of Karnataka Judicial Service. They belong to the cadre of Civil Judges (Sr. Dn. ) at the time of filing these petitions. In W.P. No. 28245/93 they have prayed to quash the notifications at Annexure- B, H and U. In Annexure - B dated 22.12.1992 the 52 posts of District Judges is sanctioned out of which it consists 10 Supertime Scale posts, 40 District Judges, 2 Leave Reserve and 33 Deputation Reserves. In Annexure-H dated 12.11.1990 recommendation is made for recruitment of 12 posts of District Judges from the Bar. In Annexure-U dated 25.1.1993 respondents 4 to 15 have been appointed as District Judges under direct recruitment quota pursuant to Annexure-H. Their appointments are challenged by the petitioners in these petitions on the ground that the same is excessive to direct recruitment quota urging various legal grounds.2. In W.P. No. 21736/97 the petitioners have sought for quashing the notifications Annex...
Lt. Col K.C. Bheemaiah Vs. Kakamada A. Kuttappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant224; ILR2003KAR4206; 2004(2)KarLJ349
Thakur, J.1. This is a Plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell. The Court below has by its Judgment and decree dated 22.12.1993 dismissed the suit holding that the alleged agreement set up by the plaintiff did not in law constitute an agreement to sell the suit schedule property. The facts given rise to the institution of the suit and the filing of the present appeal may be summarized as under:2. The Plaintiff-appellant herein filed O.S.No. 80/1991 for specific performance of what according to him was an agreement to sell the suit schedule property. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants-respondents herein had received a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ - towards part payment of a total consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs for the transfer of the schedule property in his favour. His further case was that the agreement executed between the parties stipulated that the defendants shall execute a Sale Deed in respect of the suit property within a period o...
Avasarala Automation Limited Vs. the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4443; [2004]266ITR178(KAR); [2004]266ITR178(Karn)
Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The appellant in this Appeal [hereinafter referred to as 'the Assessee'] is a domestic Company carrying on business relating to manufacture of Special Purpose machinery.2. Facts in brief are as hereunder:For the Assessment year 1996-97, i.e. year ending 31st March 1996, the assessee filed its return of income on 29th November 1996 declaring the total income of Rs. 1,54,33,960/- (Rupees One crore fifty four lakhs thirty three thousand nine hundred sixty only). In the return filed, the assessee had claimed that it had purchased machinery/equipment from Andra Pradesh State Electricity Board [hereinafter referred to as 'the APSES'], by virtue of an agreement of Sale Deed dated 29th September 1995 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,60,18,854/- (Rupees One crore sixty lakhs eighteen thousand eight hundred fifty four only); and on the same day, by means of a separate Lease Deed, it had leased back the said machinery/equipment to APSEB for a monthly rent of Rs. 2,19,49...
B.S. Nazir Hassan Khan Vs. Aswathanarayana Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant92; 2004(2)KarLJ191
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. The present petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 9-6-2003 whereby I.A. XIII has been rejected. I.A.-XIII is effectively for appointment of a Commissioner and was filed on 2-11-2000. The reason why the I.A. has been rejected Js on the ground that it is hopelessly belated and that it is filed at a stage of the proceedings when such an I.A. could not have been entertained by the Court in law.2. The learned Judge has pointed out in the order passed that the suit is of the year 1991. The evidence of the plaintiff was commenced on 4-11-1996 and the evidence was closed on 22-2-1999. In the course of these three years, if the plaintiff and the learned Advocate desired that any Commissioner was necessary or desirable, it was at this point of time that the application ought to have been made and most certainly before the plaintiffs evidence was closed. If the application was justified, the court would have granted it or else it could have been ...
K. Rajavarma Ballal and Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant138
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Sri K. Rajavarma Ballal --Petitioner in W.P. No. 31333 of 2003; Sri B.P. Divakara -- petitioner in W.P. No. 33401 of 2003; The Director, Shimoga Transport Company Private Limited and The Gajanana Motor Transport Company Limited -- petitioners in W.P. Nos. 31953-54 of 2003 are before me seeking a direction directing the respondents not to grant/assign timings or issue stage carriage permits unless the routes are formulated or specified as per Section 68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act.' for short).2. Petitioners state that Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act was enacted providing for formulation of routes for grant of stage carriage permits. Writ petitions were filed in this Court in Writ Petition No. 36516 of 2000 and connected matters. This Court by an order dated 27-11-2000, according to the petition averments, disposed of those petitions with certain directions. Writ Appeals were filed by the petitioners therein, and the writ appeals were disposed o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »