Karnataka Court February 2004 Judgments
Raju Narayanappa Othare and anr. Vs. the Registrar (General) High Cour ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1454; 2004(4)KarLJ28
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J.1. The petitioners claims to be the owners of the property bearing CTS No. 1014 situate at Ward No. 3, Janatha Bazaar, Hubli, wherein a temple of Changadeva Maharaja exists. When the petitioners were exercising their ownership rights over the property, the Karnataka State Board of Wakf - respondent No. 2 herein notified the said property as 'Wakf Property'.2. The petitioners filed a Civil Suit on 19-3-1985 in O.S.No. 192/ 1985 challenging the said notification. The suit was decreed on 28-2-2001. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the Karnataka State Board of Wakf and the Dharwad District Wakf Committee filed an appeal in R.A.No. 73/2001 on the file of the Prl.. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hubli. When the appeal was being heard, the learned District Judge, Dharwad, purporting to exercise his power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure withdrew R.A.No.73/2001 from the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hubli, and transferred the same to the fil...
Tag this Judgment!B.H. Amar Venkatesh and ors. Vs. Senior Superintendent of Post Officer ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1600; 2004(5)KarLJ563
ORDERRaveendran, J. 1. The petitioners are employees of the Department of Posts presently working as Postmen/Post women/Postal Assistants. Petitioners claim that they are entitled to House Rent Allowance ('HRA' for short) if they are not provided any residential accommodation by the employer (Central Government).2. The petitioners allege that they were not provided governmental accommodation. M/s Hindustan Machine Tools Limited (''HMT' for short), a Government Company, which had some surplus residential quarters in its colony, has let out such quarters to them on rent. They claimed that they were paying a rent of Rs. 900/- per month (at the rate of Rs. 2/- Per square foot for an accommodation of about 450 square feet) plus other misc. charges ranging from Rs. 200/- to 400/ - per month towards electricity, water etc.. It is stated that rent has been subsequently increased to Rs. 3/- per sq ft and consequently they are paying rent at the rate of Rs. 1,350/- from 01-04-.2003, apart from o...
Tag this Judgment!Andhra Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. Vs. Giriraj N. Kinagi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC544; 2004ACJ1540; 2004(7)KarLJ49
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 1117 and 228 of 2002 are filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') calling in question the judgment and award dated 12.10.2001 and hence, they are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. M.F.A. No. 1117 of 2002 is filed by the Management of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, calling in question the legality and validity of the judgment dated 12.10.2001 filed in M.V.C. No. 309 of 1999 on the file of the Addl. District judge (M.A.C.T.), Raichur (for short 'the M.A.C.T.'), while M.F.A. No. 228 of 2002 is filed by injured-claimant, seeking more compensation.3. Common facts, in brief, leading to the filing of these appeals are:On 23.4.1999 at about 11.45 p.m. while the claimant was returning to Vidyanagar after completion of his private business at a super market in Gulbarga riding his Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No. KA 32-H 7966 and...
Tag this Judgment!Motor and General Finance Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Transport an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant268; 2004(5)KarLJ584
ORDER1. Petitioner claims to be a person who had financed the purchase of motor vehicle by financing the third respondent who had purchased two vehicles by utilising the amount advanced by the petitioner. The vehicles were registered bearing Registration No. KA-4-A-6057 and Registration No. KA-04-B-6057. Petitioner's name figured as the owner in the Registration certificate issued in respect of these two vehicles and the third respondent figured as the hirer.2. The controversy in the present writ petition is about the non-payment of the tax due in respect of the vehicles for the period from 1-10-1999 to 31-12-2000 amounting to Rs. 2,82,745/- and from 31-12-2000 to 1-4-2001 amounting to Rs. 1,79,930/- as indicated in Annexure F to the writ petition. It is not in dispute that the vehicles were being used on the road by the third respondent during the relevant time. It appears, the third respondent having defaulted in making payment in respect of the amounts due as per the agreement betwe...
Tag this Judgment!B. Sankappa Rai and ors. Vs. K. Ekananda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2619; 2004(7)KarLJ46
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. Both these revision petitions are directed against the order dated 16.5.2'000 passed by the JMFC, II Court, Mangalore D.K Dist, in P.C. No. 307/2000 regarding taking of cognizance and issuance of summons to the respondent on the ground that the order passed by the Trial Court is illegal and that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.2. The brief facts leading to these cases are that the revision petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent on 4.3.2000 at 6p.m on the allegation that at about 4.30 p.m the respondent and other 30 members assembled in the Dist. Congress Committee(DCC), Mangalore, under the Chairmanship of A.C. Bhandari discussing deeply as to who among 17 out of 21 successive candidates of Bajal Village Panchayath should be nominated for the posts. At that time, respondents all of a sudden trespassed into the meeting hall and some of them were armed with pen-knives and smooth round stones concealed in cloth wears and Res...
Tag this Judgment!Kanoria Industries Ltd. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant340
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner is a manufacturer of cement. Petitioner industry had fallen sick. Petitioner had approached the Board for Industrial and Financial Re-construction by making a reference to the Board under Section 15 of the Act. The Board on, consideration of the same was of the view that the petitioner-company should be declared as a sick unit within the meaning of Section 3(O) of the Act r/w Section 18 for the purpose of a scheme being prepared for the rehabilitation of the company.2. The Board so declared the company as a sick unit on 2-6-2000 and thereafter, proceedings are pending before the Board within the provisions of the Act from this day.3. It is the assertion of the petitioner that the cutoff date for the purpose of granting moratorium, which had been fixed to be as 31-12-2000 has been shifted by the Board after hearing all the concerned and as of now it is 31-3-2003.4. Insofar as the present petition is concerned the petitioner has sought for issue...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Balawant Hegde Vs. the Food Inspector
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3605; ILR2004KAR3106; 2004(5)KarLJ138
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. All these three revision petitions are filed by the respective revision petitioners/accused, against the judgment dated 27.10.2000 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge at Belgaum, in Crl.A.Nos. 62/92, 64/92 and 63/92 respectively, whereby learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeals filed by the revision petitioners and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the JMFC, Chikodi, dated 18.9.1992 in CC. Nos 384/88, 546/90 and 7/88 respectively, assailing the said order of conviction and sentence these revision petitioners have come up with this revision under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C mainly on the ground that the specimen seals were not sent on the same day along with the sample to the public analyst for comparison and the said Public Analyst has not been examined to show that the sample milk so sent in each of the cases were adulterated one and the report does not disclose about the percentage of milk fat in the sample. The sample milk so sen...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Vs. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannavar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3580
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This revision petition is directed against: the order dated 4-8-2002 passed by the VI Addl. C. M. M., Bangalore, in C. C. No. 6779/2000 (P. C. R. No. 453/ 99) mainly on the ground that the private complaint filed by respondent-1 nearly 11 1/2 years from the date of alleged agreement which is beyond period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act. The allegation set out in the complaint do not constitute any offence. The entire dispute sought to be raised by the complainant is based on an alleged agreement of sale dated 25-12-4998. In fact the revision petitioner has denied the alleged agreement of sale executed by him in favour of the complainant and he suitably replied to the legal notice issued to him by the complainant and further that the trial Court without applying its mind took the cognizance of the case and issued process. There is no consistency in the statement recorded by the trial Court. Even the police report discloses that no prima facie cas...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Rajendra Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Khoday Eshwarsa and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Kar)57; [2005]272ITR448(KAR); [2005]272ITR448(Karn)
K. Ramanna, J.1. All these criminal revision petitions are filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Bangalore, against the orders dated October 20, 2001, passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, in C. C. Nos. 71, 73, 205, 208, 206 and 207 of 1999, respectively, whereby the trial court allowed the applications filed by the respondents-accused under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and discharged them mainly on the ground that the notice issued by the revision petitioner under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), is not a valid service.2. The case of the prosecution is that the search of the respondents' premises was conducted in the month of February, 1997, and seized cash, certain books of account and then issued notice under Section 158BC of the Act to the respective respondents calling upon them to furnish the return of the income for the periods 1986-87 to 1996-97 within 45 days from the date of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanoria Industries Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST309(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner is a manufacturer of cement. Petitioner industry had fallen sick. Petitioner had approached the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction by making a reference to the Board under Section 15 of the Act. The Board on consideration of the same was of the view that the petitioner-company should be declared as a sick unit within the meaning of Section 3(o) of the Act read with Section 18 for the purpose of a scheme being prepared for the rehabilitation of the company.2. The Board so declared the company as a sick unit on June 2, 2000 and thereafter, proceedings are pending before the Board within the provisions of the Act from this day.3. It is the assertion of the petitioner that the cut-off date for the purpose of granting moratorium, which had been fixed to be as December 31, 2000 has been shifted by the Board after hearing all the concerned and as of now it is March 31, 2003.4. In so far as the present petition is concerned the petition...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »