Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR4530
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The case is at the stage of admission. At the request and with the consent of both the parties, the appeal heard on merits for final disposal.The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the Movie Independence Day (I.D.) produced by the defendants is the infringement of the copyright of the film script Extra Terrestrial Mission (E.T.M.). Further seek an injunction against display of the film in any theatre or through a videocassette etc. both in India and world over. Further seek an enquiry into accounts of the film I.D. for assessing the compensation payable to the plaintiff for the tort of infringement.2. The Managing Director of the Plaintiff Company claims to be the author of the film script E.T.M., acquired registered copyright in the year 1986. The plaintiff in the year 1993 had engaged Ms. Susan Schaefer, an Entertainment Attorney at U.S. for getting a financial investor as a co-producer for the film ETM. One Mr. Richard Garzilli a profession...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR4206; 2004(6)KarLJ1
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.1. Karnataka Lorry Malikara Okkuta (R) and some registered owners of the lorries have filed these petitions on 20.12.2002 praying to quash the Government Order dated 13.11.2002 and to direct the State Government to constitute an expert Committee to go into the question of controlling pollution by alternate methods of using CNG fuel or any other clean fuel, by replacement of worn out parts of engine etc.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned notification, completely banning the entry of vehicles which are aged more than 15 years from the outer ring Road even in a phased manner, would affect the fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also would not fall within the meaning of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. It is stated that the Government has misinterpreted the order passed by the Supreme Court in M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA, W.P.No. 13029/1985; : [2001...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(29)PTC450(Karn)
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. This petition is filed by accused Nos. 1 and 3 for quashing the proceedings in Crime No. 633/2002 registered by Koramangala police station and now pending enquiry before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bangalore.2. The petitioners alongwith others have been alleged of commission of offences under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Trade Marks Act) and under Section 63 of the Copyrights Act and Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the allegations and the dispute as well as the offences alleged to have been committed are practically technical in nature, it is not necessary to mention the allegations, and the reply addressed by both the sides.3. A complaint under Section 200 Cr. P.C. has been filed by M/s. Haldiram Foods International Ltd. against the petitioners here in and others for the aforesaid offences, inter alia, contending that the complainant firm i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR783; 2005(1)KarLJ576
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The writ petitioners being aggrieved by the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 30th April, 2004 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 16923, 17396 and 17397 of 2004 have preferred these writ appeals questioning the validity of the order of the learned Single Judge. Appellant 1 is Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College represented by the Chairman of Ad hoc Committee appointed by this Court and appellant 2 is Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College, represented by its Principal. The 1st respondent is the Union of India; the 2nd respondent is the Medical Council of India; the 3rd respondent is the State of Karnataka and the 4th respondent is Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences.2. In these writ proceedings two important questions, among other incidental questions, arise for decision making. They are:(i) Whether the Medical Council of India (for short, the 'MCI') has the authority under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act') to stop admissions in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2004Kant492; ILR2004KAR4376
ORDER 18 RULE 4 - Whether receipt of plaintiff's affidavit in lieu of oral evidence as per Rule 4 to Order 18 CPC is sufficient to hold that evidence is recorded within the scope of Section 66 of the Act - HELD, the amendment by way of adding Rule 4 to Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure is with an intention to reduce prolonged litigation - Receiving affidavit of P.W.1 in lieu of oral evidence cannot be treated as 'Evidence recorded'. Held:Admittedly, the Court has not spent any time in recording evidence in suit. Further, the defendant has cross examined PW-1. On the other hand, the plaintiff and the defendant, by mutual consent, have got their dispute settled out of Court. In this regard, it will be useful to refer to the decision reported in ILR 1985 KAR 2385 (P.B. Rai v. Reza Mali). In the above-said case, this Court has held that the benefit of refund of half the amount of Court fee paid on the claim in a Suit, made available to a Suitor under Section 66 of the Act was intende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR4486; (2008)11VST286(Karn)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. The revenue is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('KST Act' for short) interalia calling in question the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal No. STA. 1033/1999.2. The question of law raised for our consideration and decision is:'Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the orders passed by the assessing authority and the first appellate authority in levying penalty under Section 12-B(3) of the KST Act?'3. The relevant facts for the purpose of this case are as under:The respondent is a Private Limited Company dealing in arrack. It is registered as a dealer both under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('CST Act' for short). For the non-payment of advance tax every month on the basis of monthly returns within the prescribed time for the assessment year 1993-1994, the assessing authority in his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR5062
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner who is registered as an occupant under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act of 1961 (in short called as KLRF Act) in respect of 13 Acres 23 guntas of land in Survey Nos. 169, 171 and 172 of Devanur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, is aggrieved by the order passed by the KAT dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the 1st respondent refusing to convert the Laud from agricultural use to non-agricultural purpose. Hence, he has prayed to quash the endorsements issued by R-l vide Annexures 'D' and 'E' dated 26.8.2002 and 4-11-2002 respectively and also to quash the impugned order at Annexure 'G' dated 27.10.2003 urging various legal contentions.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ravi Prakash has placed strong reliance upon the decision of this Court reported in State of Karnataka v. The Ryots Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Employees Co-operative Society Limited and Anr., 1986(1) KLJ 237 wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR123
Held:It is not in dispute that the Assistant Commissioner on receiving such a notice has called for a meeting in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules. However it is contended that the requirement of Sub-section 2 of Section 52 is not complied and therefore the meeting convened is bad in law. Unfortunately, for the petitioner it is not the procedure envisaged under Sub-section 2 of Section 52 that is required to be followed for the purpose of moving a no confidence motion against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha. It is the provisions of Section 49 that governs the situation and the procedure prescribed thereunder being under Rule 3 of the Rules, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner are not tenable, fails and the writ petitions dismissed.D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by the Adhyaksha of Salotagi Gram Panchayat in Indi taluk of Bijapur District who is confronted with a no confidence motion moved by the requisite number of members of the Panchayat and in response t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2008)11VST715(Karn)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. A contractor is before this court calling in question the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. S.T.A. 569 of 2001 dated August 30, 2002. By the said order, the Appellate Tribunal has rejected the appeal filed by the contractor and has confirmed the order passed by the revisional authority in KST. SMR. 29.2000-01-B-86 dated April 10, 2001.2. The petitioner is a registered dealer, registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short). For the assessment year 1996-97, the petitioner was awarded a contract for construction of a bridge over the Ghataprabha river. For the relevant assessment year, the petitioner claimed a concessional rate of tax on the iron and steel used by the contractor for the purpose of construction of the bridge. The assessing authority has allowed the claim of the petitioner while computing the taxable turnover and the tax liability of the petitioner.3. The revisional authority bein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005CriLJ218
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. Though the matter is listed for orders on an interlocutory application, by consent, the writ petition is heard finally.2. A petition under Section 138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act ('N. I. Act' for short) was filed by the respondent before the J. M. F. C. Yellapur against the petitioner herein. According to the respondent, the petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs. 54,900/- on 25-10-1998. On presentation, the cheque issued by the petitioner, returned with a Shera 'insufficient funds'. Therefore the respondent issued a notice and thereafter filed a complaint on 25-11-1998 in P. C. 51/98. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, on 17-5-1999 the cognizance was taken by the Court. Subsequently, evidence was also recorded. When the case was posted for arguments on merits, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 190 of Cr. P. C. read with 142 of N. I. Act, requesting the Court to discharge him, on the ground that the co...
Tag this Judgment!