Karnataka Court January 2004 Judgments
The Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Bank Limited and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3588
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The first petitioner being the Society and second petitioner its President are before this Court seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to return all the records, money and other securities taken over by the 4th respondent pursuant to order dated 10.10.2000, urging various legal contentions. 2. Various legal contentions urged in this petition need not be adverted to having regard to Sub-section (4) of Section 29-G and Clauses (f) and (g) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, as the petitioner represented by its President-second petitioner cannot maintain the Writ Petition. The petition must fail on this ground alone. 3. Apart from the said reason, the relief sought for in this petition cannot be granted by this Court having regard to the documents produced by 4th respondent vide Annexure -R1 passed by the Common Cadre Authority (CCA), Mysore, the Chief Executive Officer of the first petitioner - Bank A.V. Nanjappa was transferred...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishna Hatcheries Vs. Clarification and Advance Ruling Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: [2004]137STC187(Kar)
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. Sri Anand, learned Government Advocate takes notice for respondent.2. Appellant is engaged in poultry farming. It sells dressed chicken. The term 'dressed' with reference to chicken means bled, scalded, de-feathered, de-boned and freezed. The dressed chicken is sold by the appellant in polythene bags. The polythene bags are closed either by stapling or by crimping and fastening. Stapling is done by using an ordinary stapler. Crimping and fastening (by twisting an aluminium wire around the crimped portion) is done by using a crimping machine. The name and address of the appellant and the description of the contents are printed on the polythene bag.3. Entry 22 of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short) exempts from tax 'eggs and meat including flesh of poultry except when sold in sealed containers', Correspondingly, entry 8(vii) of Part F of Second Schedule subjects 'meat and dressed chicken sold in sealed containers' to tax und...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Afroz Banu Vs. Nandaram (Dead) by L.Rs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1295; 2004(2)KarLJ388
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. These appeals are filed against the judgment and decree passed in R.A. Nos. 10 and 11 of 2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hassan arising out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. Nos. 18 of 1993 and 232 of 1992 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sakaleshpur. Both the suits have been clubbed together. A common order has been passed. The appellant is the plaintiff in both the suits filed for declaration that the eviction order obtained in O.S. No. 18 of 1993 is null and void and not binding and further seek consequential relief of injunction not to execute the decree of eviction. Perhaps the relief in O.S. No. 18 of 1993 is the duplicated version of the relief in O.S. No. 232 of 1992. It appears from the records that the plaintiff was taking adjournments time and again to adduce evidence and 18 adjournments were taken to adduce evidence. Both the suits were clubbed together at the request of the plaintiff and finally posted f...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Gangayya Veerayya Gadigeppanavar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2271; 2004(3)KarLJ448
1. Though this criminal appeal has been listed for orders on the ground that there is an office objection since it relates only to the filing of the certified copy, we have waived the objection and we have heard the learned Government Pleader on merits.2. This case involves a clear point of law because, the accused at the relevant time was the Secretary of a Co-operative Society and even though the Trial Court convicted him for criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts, the appeal Court set aside the conviction on the ground that the requisite sanction under Section 111 of the Co-operative Societies Act had not been obtained. While doing so, the appeal Court has relied on a recent Division Bench decision of this Court in case of State by P.S.I. (I and O), Athani Police Station v. Pundalik Annappa Garage 2002(4) Kar L.J. 409 (DB), wherein the Division Bench of this Court has very clearly held that Section 111 mandates the grant of sanction for prosecution under the Co-opera...
Tag this Judgment!Sringeri Prithviraj (Dead) by L.Rs Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ670
ORDERH. Rangvittalachar, J.1. One M.S. Prithviraj, the husband and father of petitioners 1(a), (b) and (c) was the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 116/6, Koramangala having purchased the same in the year 1982 from one K.M. Govinda Reddy. He contends in the writ petition that he had put up a commercial complex in the said land. However, it came to be demolished by the Bangalore Development Authority on the ground that the construction was made encroaching the BDA's property. Later, according to the petitioner, the Commissioner of the BDA, Sri Jayakar Jerome -- 2nd respondent herein, had given a press statement as under: 'This is the first time in the history of the State such huge unauthorised structure has been demolished. The 40 ft. Prithvi Mansion had come upon a BDA site measuring 200 x 200 ft. near Koramangala Police Station, The value of the site is estimated to be more than 3 crores is noted. The building owner Mr. Prithvi Raj had approached the Court seeking stay against demolitio...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sringeri Prithviraj (Deceased by Lr) and ors. Vs. State of Karnata ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1149
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J.1. One M. S. Prithiviraj, the husband and father of petitioners 1(a), (b) and (c) was the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 116/6, Koramangala having purchased the same in the year 1982 from one K. M. Govinda Reddy. He contends in the writ petition that he had put up a commercial complex in the said land. However, it came to be demolished by the Bangalore Development Authority on the ground that the construction was made encroaching the BDA's property. Later, according to the petitioner, the Commissioner of the BDA Sri Jayakar Jerome-2nd respondent herein, had given a press statement as under : This is the first time in the history of the State such huge unauthorised structure has been demolished. The 40 Ft. Prithvi Mansion had come upon a BDA site measuring 200 x 200 ft. near Koramangala Police Station. The value of the site is estimated to be more than 3 crores is noted. The building owner Mr. Prithvi Raj had approached the Court seeking stay against demolitio...
Tag this Judgment!Karbasappa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, Through Narona P.S.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3552; 2004(5)KarLJ260
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. The accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentences dated 27.2.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, in Sessions Case No. 2/1994, have approached this Court in the present appeal. It appears that accused No. 3 has not preferred any appeal.2. The brief facts as per the prosecution case leading to the present appeal are as follows:The deceased-Chandrasha, his son P.W.1 - Maruti, P.W5-daughter-Prema and P.W.6-grand son-Sripathi along with other close relatives was residing at Ele-Navadagi village in Aland Taluk of Gulbarga District. The appellants are also residents of the same village and are inter se related. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 (Appellants-1 and 2) are the sons of Accused No. 4. According to the prosecution, one year or so prior to the incident deceased-Chandrasha had purchased a land Sy. No. 81 of Bolli Village from One Ramachandra - younger brother of accused No. 3 - Revansiddappa. As accused No. 3 had also a l...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Razak Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3457; 2004(5)KarLJ456
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. An unsuccessful accused has filed this revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr. P.O. against the order dated 16-1-2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Cri. A. No. 76 of 2001, whereby the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10-9-2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, N.R. Pura in C.C. No. 68 of 2001, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act read with Section 379 of the IPC directing him to undergo S.I. for 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-, he shall further undergo S.I. for 6 months. Therefore, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and orders by the aforesaid Courts, he has come up with this revision petition mainly on the ground that there are no independent witnesses regarding the alleged seizure mahazar drawn by the forest officials at ab...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Susheela and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC460; III(2004)ACC817; 2004ACJ1518; [2004(101)FLR393]; ILR2004KAR1332; 2004(2)KarLJ265
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.1. This appeal is by the Insurance Company. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31st July, 2001 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Chickmagalur in No. WCA.CR. 9 of 1997. The appellant has framed the following substantial question of law for consideration:'Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in assuming jurisdiction in respect of death of workman outside the course and outside the employment?'2. Brief facts for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as under:The husband of claimant 1 and father of claimants 2 to 5 was employed by the first respondent (before the Commissioner) as non-staff Watchman. It is the case of the claimants that after completing the duty on 6-6-1994 when he was returning home he died due to sudden cardiac arrest and the said incident has arisen while he was on duty and during the course of his employment under the first respondent. It is their case that the deceased was e...
Tag this Judgment!R. Shariff and ors. Vs. A. Mohammed Noor and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1546; 2004(2)KarLJ445
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. All these revision petitions are by the tenants. H.R.R.P. No. 417 of 2003 relates to H.R.C. No. 1566 of 1998; H.R.R.P. No. 427 of 2003 relates to H.R.C. No. 1564 of 1998; H.R.R.P. No. 426 of 2003 relays to H.R.C. No. 1563 of 1998 and H.R.R.P. No. 428 of 2003 relates to H.R.C. No. 1565 of, 1998.2. In all these petitions the landlord is common and the tenants are different.3. During the course of this order, the landlord would be referred to as the petitioner and the tenants will be referred to as the respondents.4. The petitioner initiated eviction proceedings under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 seeking eviction of the respondents under Section 21(1)(h) and (j) of the Act. The case of the petitioner is that all the respondents are tenants under the petitioner in respect of the shop premises bearing No. 286 situate at Thimmaiah Road, Civil Station, Bangalore and all the respondents are paying a monthly rent of Rs. 125/- and the tenancy being of English ca...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »