Karnataka Court July 2004 Judgments

B.T.L. Education Trust Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Secretary t ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2004KAR4036; 2004(6)KarLJ23

ORDERChidananda Ullal, J. Lot of facts are involved in this case. However, I narrate here below the relevant facts just required for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition.1. That the father of respondents No. 4 to 8, one Sri Buddappa @ Budda Reddy had filed a declaration under Section 61 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, henceforth in brief referred to as U.L.C. Act.That the respondent No. 2 - Deputy Commissioner had taken up the declaration filed by the above said Budda Reddy and held that he was holding an extent of 14,879 sq. mts. in Sy.No. 167/4, 172/1, 172/3 of Kothnur Village, Bangalore South Taluk, as an excess land beyond the ceiling limit and he therefore ordered to acquire the same by issue of notification under Section 10(1) of the U.L.C. Act (Henceforth for convenience referred to as 'subject land').2. That the Respondent No. 1 - State had issued preliminary notification and final notification for acquisition of the 'subject land' situated in Sy.No. 172/3 of Kothanur V...

Percy Fernandes Vs. Smt. Anita Patrao

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)17; ILR2004KAR4381

ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. In view of similarity in the facts and as same point is involved between the same parties, these two petitions are taken together for consideration.2. The respondent-complainant filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate against the petitioner-accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of N. I. Act. The learned Magistrate did not examine the complainant on oath, but received the affidavit of the complainant as sworn statement, when filed by the complainant and, considering the material on record and finding that a prima facie case has been made out by the complainant to issue process against the accused for the offence alleged, ordered to issue process against the accused. So, challenging the same, the petitioner-accused is before this Court.3. When the respondent-complainant appeared before the Court after notice, with consent of both sides, taken the matter for final hearing and heard both sides.4. It was vehemently argued for the petitioner-accus...

K.M. Maregowda Vs. Seven Hills Ex-import Corporation

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)13; 2004CriLJ4119

ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. In this petition, following points arise for consideration:(1) Whether a complaint for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, not signed by the complainant, could be entertained?(2) Whether a Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant can file complaint in his capacity as power of attorney holder?(3) Whether examination of Power of Attorney Holder of complainant on oath satisfies the requirements of Section 200 of Cr.P.C.?2. The respondent-complainant filed a complaint before the Court through its Power of Attorney holder for an offence punishable under Section 138 of N. I. Act, under the signature of Power of Attorney Holder. After taking cognizance, the Power of Attorney Holder was examined upon oath by the learned Magistrate and thereafter. process was issued. Challenging the same, the petitioner accused is before this Court.3. After notice to the respondent-complainant, with consent of both sides, taken the matter for final hearing and heard both sides.4. It...

State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2004KAR4866; (2008)11VST64(Karn)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, J. 1. The points at issue in these revision petitions are:'Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the element of entry tax separately collected and billed by the assessee could not form the sale price of the goods for the reason of same having been collected under a separate statute? Alternatively, 'Whether the amount of entry tax collected on entry of goods into the local area before its sale to the ultimate consumer can be treated as the presale value of the goods, when the assessee has passed on the same to the ultimate purchaser adding it to the sale price of the goods.? 2. To answer the questions of law raised for consideration and decision of this Court, the facts in STRP No. 102/1999 are noticed.3. The assessee is a Public Limited Company, a Government of Karnataka undertaking and is registered under the provisions of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('KST Act' for short) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('CST Act' for short), dealing...

Shekargouda Mallanagouda Desai Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2004(6)KarLJ608

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner claims to be a person who has right as a legal heir to an extent of 3 acres of land granted in favour of his grandfather situated in Belur Village, Badami Taluk, Bagalkot District in terms of Annexure-A, dated 5-2-1945. The purpose of the grant in terms of this order was to put up a building to house a ginning factory and the grant also fixed an occupancy price of Rs. 210/- and an annual ground rent of Rs. 37 and 14 Annas computed at the rate of 1/2 pie per square yard subject to certain further conditions.2. In respect of such land it appears the Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot District had initiated action for cancellation of the grant which resulted in the order dated 14-12-1998 cancelling the grant. Petitioner had challenged that order by filing an appeal to the Karnataka Tribunal. The appeal also came to be dismissed. Thereafter petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 17769 of 2001.3. The writ petition was allowed as per Ord...

M.M.J. Harshavardhan and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2004(6)KarLJ560

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. These three petitioners claim that they are members of Kottur Town Panchayat. First petitioner represents the first elected under the general category. Second petitioner was elected against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribes (Women) candidate and the 3rd petitioner having been elected against the post reserved in favour of other Backward Classes.2. Petitioners claim that they are aggrieved by the notification dated 12th July, 2004 issued by the Karnataka Government (Annexure-C) insofar as it relates to Kottur Town Panchayat which figures at Sl. No. 40 in the list of Panchayats in respect of which reservation against the posts of President and Vice-President were indicated in this notification.3. Insofar as the Kottur Town Panchayat is concerned there is no reservation either for the post of President or Vice-President in the sense that both are falling under the general category open for contest by any candidate.4. It is the validity of this notifica...

Aravinda Parimala Works and ors. Vs. the Enforcement Officer (Pf), Mys ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005CriLJ214; (2005)ILLJ333Kant

ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. Since in these petitions filed by the petitioners accused, facts involved, grounds urged, relief claimed and parties are similar they are taken together.2. The case of respondent-complainant in all these petitions is : The first petitioner-first accused namely, M/s Aravinda Parimala Works, at Mysore is an establishment within the meaning of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and one H.S. Rao (shown as representing the first petitioner in these petitions now), is the Managing Partner whereas, other persons are its partners. All the said persons are shown in Form 5-A as persons in-charge of and responsible to the first petitioner for the conduct of its business under the Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme. But, in spite of request, insurance/provident fund contributions due in respect of the employees of the first petitioner and required to be paid for different period (s) within stipul...

Smt. Durgabai Wo Dattajirao Ghatge. Vs. Yesaba Santu Kamble.

Court: Karnataka

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. The principal question that needs to be addressed in the present Petition is: what was the holding of the Petitioner landlady on the date when she made application for possession under Section 33B read with Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 27th January 1965. It is not in dispute that exemption certificate under Section 88C of the Act has been issued in favour of the Petitioner on 30th October 1964. On the basis of that Certificate, the Petitioner filed application for possession of the suit land from the Respondents tenants on 27th January 1965. The First Authority, after several remands, have eventually found, as of fact, that the Petitioner landlady was not in possession of any agricultural land on the date of application i.e. 27th January 1965. For reaching at this conclusion, the Authority has analysed the evidence on record, both documentary as well as oral. Indeed) it has refe...

A.M. Khaithan Vs. M. Sheshappa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2005Kant23; ILR2004KAR4141; 2004(6)KarLJ130

ORDERRamesh, J. 1. This Writ Petition by defendant No. 7 is directed against the interlocutory order of the Trial Court dated 11.6.2004 rejecting his application I.A. No. II filed under Section 151 of CPC to permit him to file written statement in O.S. No. 1225/2002.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Learned Counsel in support of his submission that the impugned order is erroneous has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in MOHAMMED ANWAR (DECEASED) BY LRS. v. SABIR AND OTHERS, : ILR2004KAR2759 3. The Trial Court by the impugned order has rejected the petitioner's application for leave to file written statement on the ground that it had no power to extend time beyond what is stipulated under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.4. The suit in question was filed after 01.07.2002 ie., after coming into force of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 ('the Amendment Act' for short). The application f...

Kariya Bommagouda Vs. the Assistant Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2004(6)KarLJ307

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner, had been elected as Upadhyaksha of Bankanal Grama Panchayat, Sirsi Taluk, U.K. District. It appears the requisite number of members of the Panchayat gave notice to the Assistant Commissioner proposing to move the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner in turn notified all the members a meeting scheduled for the said purpose, which was fixed on 21-2-2004 and to the misfortune of the petitioner the motion was carried as six members out of eight members, who constituted the Panchayat voted in support of the no-confidence motion. It is thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court, feeling aggrieved about the manner in which the no-confidence proceedings were conducted against him.2. Sri Hadimani, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Assistant Commissioner has not followed the requisite procedure as contemplated under Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 read with Rule 3 of the...