Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(7)KarLJ456
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner-Education Trust has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 19-6-2004 passed by the 2nd respondent in No. LND(S) CR 223.97-98 at Annexure-G urging various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is that 57 acres of land in Sy. No. 225 of Somanahalli was granted permanently and 33 acres of land in the said survey number was leased in its favour for a period of 10 years by the State Government vide Government Order No. RD 153 LBG 62, dated 3-5-1962 for the purpose of development of agriculture along with the Education Activity. Pursuant to the said grant, it has constructed various buildings for the purpose of setting up of Engineering and Diploma Colleges and High Schools. On an earlier occasion, petitioner had filed W.P. No. 26259 of 1991 when under the guise of 'Ashraya Scheme' some people tried to enter the property of the petitioner on the ground that sites have been allotted to them by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(7)KarLJ465
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. These writ appeals are filed against the order dated 6-4-2004 passed in the W.P. Nos. 22934 of 1996 and 13499 of 1998 whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petitions with liberty to make representations before the respondent-authorities requesting them for some relief at least in the calculation of the price for the mineral excavated and supplied Intra-State or Inter-State or exported outside the country.2. These appeals are filed along with I.A. No. 3 of 2004 for condonation of delay of 18 days. It is stated that the appellant filed the appeals along with an application for dispensation of the certified copy of the impugned order as he had filed the same in other connected appeals. Since the office raised an objection regarding non-production of certified copy of the impugned order, he applied for the certified copy of the order on 12-8-2004 and the same was granted on 16-8-2004 and thereafter he refiled the papers along with the certified copy of the or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. This petition is filed by Sri Ravindra Ravindra Vidya Samsthe of Chalakere seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the report dated 20.12.1997, Annexure 'K' and the subsequent order dated 27.2.1998, Annexure 'Q' with a direction to grant all consequential benefits and also to handover the records to the petitioner in the given circumstances. In the amended petition, the petitioner states that the petitioner-society was registered in the year 1984. It runs educational institutions at Chalakere. According to the petition averments at the instance of certain vested interest, in the year 1996, the teaching staff created certain problems. Management took some stern action in the matter. That action had an adverse affect in the matter. According to the petitioner, several reckless allegations were made at the instance of the vested interest in the matter. The petitioner was admitted to the Grant - in - Aid code in the year 1989. College was declared as an institutio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2005Kant33; 2005(1)KarLJ150
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. R.F.A. No. 578 of 2000 is filed by the plaintiff-Venugopal and R.F.A. No. 584 of 2000 is filed by the defendant-Aswathamma challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 7502 of 1980 on the file of the 14th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore.2. Backdrop of the case:Appellant/plaintiff filed a suit stating therein that premises in question originally bearing Municipal No. 186 later renumbered as Nos. 210, 211 and 212 and presently bearing Municipal Nos. 126, 126/1, 127 and 128 situated in 6th cross road, Gandhinagar, Bangalore belonged to the joint family of late Sri M. Munivenkatappa. The suit property i.e., one tenant in the ground floor is the northwest portion of the outhouse. It consisted of one hall, two rooms, a dining hall and a water closet. Defendant's husband Venkataswamappa was related to the plaintiffs family. He was a partner in the business run by Munivenkatappa. The said business was closed. Defendant's husband was employed by the firm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(6)KarLJ538
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.1. Petitioner claiming to be a social worker and an agriculturist has filed this PIL petition with the allegation that by prosecuting the Former Chief Minister Smt. Uma Bharathi in a case which was filed in 1995 on the ground that in the alleged place where there was a prohibition, she provoked the mob to attack the Law Enforcement Authority and unfurled the National Flag. It is submitted that several cases filed against many people have been withdrawn except this case. It is further submitted that the Government sought permission to withdraw this case also but it was not permitted. The Sessions Judge has permitted the State to withdraw its revision petition, and dismissed the petition filed by Smt. Uma Bharathi on the ground of limitation but however reserving liberty to APP or State Public Prosecutor to file fresh application under Section 321 of the Cr. P.C. He also submits that by causing arrest pending such case which is only political in nature, and continuati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR4109; 2004(6)KarLJ312
ORDERPatil, J. 1. The petitioner, claims to be a house building Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1989. In view of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, the petitioner filed necessary application for registration under the said Act, and it is the case of the petitioner that, the said application filed by it was neither considered nor disposed of.2. The petitioner herein has sought for a direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to register the petitioner under the Karnataka Souharda Act, 1997 and issue the necessary Registration Certificate, from the date of its application. Further, assailing the correctness of the impugned communication/order dated 15th November 2002 bearing No. RSR.SOU.KA.45.YMA.1998-99, vide Annexure H, issued by the second respondent, the petitioner has presented the instant Writ Petition.3. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is that, as per the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 (h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR5047; [2005(3)JCR349(Kant)]
A.M. Farooq, J.1. This second appeal is by the l5t defendant in O.S.No. 6/74 on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Gadag and it is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2000 in R.A.No. 170/89 on the file of the learned III All. District Judge, Dharwad, allowing the appeal and reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.2. The brief facts of the case are that one Smt. Nagavva Kom Narasappa Navale filed the suit for declaration claiming that she is the absolute owner of Western half of the suit schedule l(a), l(b) and l(c) and the entire property described in Schedule l(d) and half of the property described in l(c) to the eastern side, which are in possession of defendant Nos. 2 to 5 as tenants, and that she is entitled for the compensation towards the value of the land and for consequential relief of injunction.3. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit properties formally belong to her husband Narasappa Navale, who was in the actual possession and enj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR4439
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. This matter has come up before us on a reference made by a Division Bench vide order dated 3.8.29:43 PM 11/20/04004. As directed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 23.8.2004, the matter has been posted today.2. It is alleged that some amount was received by the respondent/accused Marigouda, but the same was not credited to the Society and was misappropriated by him. In C.C.No. 625/1986, vide order dated 13.10.1998, the respondent was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2, 000/ in case of default to undergo S.I. for six months. The said order was set aside by the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharwad, vide order dated 03.03.2003 passed in Cri.A.No. 99/ 1998 for want of sanction. The State has filed this appeal against the said order.3. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, by order dated 06.04.2004, the matter was referred to the Division Bench for considering the question as to whether the sanction under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2004Kant494
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner who claims to be the owner of a commercial building at No. 10, Domlur Village, Airport Main Road, Bangalore, has approached this Court praying for relief against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being the Officials of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board and the Respondent No. 3- Assistant Executive Engineer, an Official of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. The grievance of the petitioner is essentially in the context of certain refusal of permission on the part of the respondent for the petitioner to obtain what is known as sanitary connection facility provided by the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board.2. The petition pleadings inter alia indicates that the petitioner had an occasion to demolish the old structure which was in existence at the place and had put up a new construction about two years back and though the petitioner claims that he has obtained an approved plan for putting up such structure, the respondent No. 3 in partic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR4260; (2008)11VST125(Karn)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these two revision petitions, they are heard together and disposed off by this common order.2. The assessee is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The assessee is also a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ('KST Act' for short) as well as the Central Sales Tax Act ('CST Act' for short).3. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of forgings with specialisation in forging jointiess rings, ring gears, flanges of sizes up-to 750 mm outer diameter. According to the petitioner, the activity that is carried on by it, is the purchase of mild steel ingots and mild steel billets and then to pound them by hammers under great pressure to form high strength parts known as forgings. It is stated by the petitioner that the metal used for forgings is never melted and poured and there is also no foundry process involved in the manufactu...
Tag this Judgment!