Karnataka Court December 2005 Judgments

Sri K. Basappa Vs. the District Magistrate and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR470; 2006(1)KarLJ552

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 04.10.2002 dismissing the writ petition No. 19947 / 2002.2. Appellant is an exhibitor of cinematograph shows in Kudithini village, Bellary Taluk. The second respondent made an application to the First Respondent for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) to put up a temporary cinema talkies in survey No. 551/A/A 1 of Kudithini village. The First Respondent, by following the procedure prescribed under the Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1971 ('the Rules' for short), issued NOC to the second respondent to put up a temporary cinema talkies by his order dated 14.03.2002 as per Annexure U to the writ petition and the licence dated 21.05.2002 as per Annexure Y1 to the writ petition. The appellant, being aggrieved by this grant of NOC by the First Respondent, filed W.P. No. 19947/2002 on the file of this Court. The Learned Single Judge by a reasoned order dated 04.10.2002 rejected t...

Ramegowda Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secretary and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR632; 2006(1)KarLJ518

H.L. Dattu, J.1. These appeals arise from Writ Petition No. 16077/2005 and Writ Petition No. 16351/2005 filed by Sri R. Ranganath and Sri L. Sathyanarayana respectively. Respondent No. 5 in the writ petition Sri. Ramegowda was the contesting respondent. By a judgment dated 22.7.2005, the Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions and has quashed the Government Order bearing No. 182. MNV. 2005, Bangalore, dated 13.6.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the 5th respondent in the writ petitions has filed these appeals.2. The Bangalore Mahanagara Palike is the fourth respondent in the writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation' for short). Recruitment to the various posts in the services of the Corporation is regulated by the Rules called 'The City of Bangalore Municipal Corporations Services (General) Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1971'. The Rules contain schedule of various posts in the services of the Corporation. The highest post provided in the schedul...

Urc Construction Limited Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR713; (2008)11VST896(Karn)

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ Petition by a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') who also executes what is known as 'works contract' in respect of which the value of the goods involved in such works contract is subject to tax in terms of Section 5B of the Act read with provisions of Schedule-VI to the Act.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the assessment order dated 27-9-2002 passed by the assessing authority determining the tax liability of the petitioner who it is averred exclusively carries on the works contract as a civil contractor and can be subjected to tax under Section 5B of the Act; that the assessing officer while so determining the tax liability in respect of the goods involved in the execution of the works contract undertaken by the petitioner which goods are cement, steel, ready mix concrete water etc., with only that portion of the assessment order levying tax on the value of the steel involved in the exe...

T.K. Sriramappa Vs. the State of Karnataka by Town Police Kolar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1851; ILR2006KAR685

ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This revision is by the accused being aggrieved of the judgment passed in Crl.A.No. 6/2000 dated 19.3.2003 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar dismissing the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence passed in CC No. 576/98 dated 9.2.2000 by the learned CJM, Kolar for the offence under Section 468 IPC.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The Town Police, Kolar charge sheeted the accused for the offence under Section 468 IPC on the allegation that on 14.11.96 at about 10.30 a.m. near the College Circle, Kolar, the accused forged the Hall tickets by using seals of the Government Junior College and First Grade College for purposes of using it to attend the examination by some other students instead of actual students. After completion of the Investigation, charge sheet was filed. The Learned CJM secured the presence of the accused and framed charges for the offence under Section 468 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claim...

John C. Thomas S/O Thomas Vs. P.M. Chandy S/O Mathew

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. It is noticed, that the respondent is served and unrepresented.2. The respondent herein had filed the suit 'against the petitioner for recovery of money. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 28.2.1997. The petitioner has challenged the said judgment and decree in R. A. 135/99. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner files an application under Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C. for additional evidence. The learned, appellate judge has rejected the said application on the ground that it is not permissible at this point of time to lead additional evidence. Annexure-A dated 15.10.2001 is the impugned order.3. Sri K.M. Hataraj, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in the normal course, an application for additional evidence will have to ha board along with the main appeal and cannot be disposed of at the threshold.4. The said contention has to he accepted in view of the judgment of this court reported in 1988(2) K.L.J. 388 (...

Sri Velu Vs. Sri Nagappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR950

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & JMFC, Bhadravathi in RA. No. 15/2000 dated 22.8.2003 allowing the appeal and reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Bhadravathi, in O.S. No. 122/94 dated 15.12.99 and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.2. The essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows:The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant averring that plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property-site measuring 20' X 35' in Sy. No. 222/2 and the same has been allotted to the plaintiff and plaintiff has constructed a house on this site for his residence. He has paid upset price of Rs,. 50/- and revenue records are in the name of the plaintiffs and defendants who have no right, title ...

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. Ramu C.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007ACJ954; 2006(6)KarLJ494

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Both the appeals pertain to different incidents. But common question of facts and law involved. Hence, both the appeals are heard together for common disposal.2. One Manjunath is the deceased in M.V.C. No. 2500 of 2001. The deceased is an inmate of the BMTC bus. One Nadecm, Suban, Islam and Hydar attempted to pick the pocket of the deceased, as a result altercation took place. The deceased was beaten to death. The police have registered a case against Nadeem and others for causing the murder in Cr. No. 218 of 1995 on the file of Sampangiramanagar Police Station.3. The deceased Maruthi in M.V.C. No. 419 of 1999 is travelling on the top of the North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation bus. Respondents 4 to 9 in M.V.C. No. 419 of 1999 had grouse against the deceased for personal reasons. In the altercation respondents 4 to 9 pushed down the deceased from the moving bus as a result Maruthi died. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the legal representatives of b...

Venkataraghavan Vs. State by Bharathinagar Police and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1571; ILR2006KAR3157; 2006(1)KarLJ508

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Heard Sri Hasmath Pasha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Satish R. Girji, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri A. Rama Mohan, Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the material on record.2. By the impugned orders, the Court below has directed that the amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- seized by police during investigation be returned to Smt. Shashi Prabha respondent 2 herein. However, while doing so, the Court below has directed the concerned Advocates, Public Prosecutor, complainant and the accused to be present before the Investigating Officer in the police station for disbursement of the currency notes. The petitioner is aggrieved by the second direction issued by the Trial Court that the Advocates, Public Prosecutor, complainant and accused shall be present before the police station. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he does not dispute that the respondent 2 is entitled to i...

Sarmus Sab Vs. IsmaIn Sab (Deceased by L.Rs.) and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2006Kant107

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the first defendant is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bellary in R.A. No. 48/ 1999 dated 17-6-2003 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Bellary, in O.S. No. 759/ 1993, dated 30-3-1999 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for redemption of mortgage and directing the defendant to deliver possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff.2. The essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows :The plaintiff filed the suit seeking for redemption of mortgage against the first defendant and for delivery of possession of the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants 2 and 3 have been impleaded since they are tenants in possession of the schedule property.3. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff is the son of Mo...

H.C. Nagappa (Deceased) by L.Rs. Vs. Thairunnisa (Deceased) by L.Rs.

Court: Karnataka

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17th January, 2005 passed by the Fast Track Court, Tarikere in R.A. No. 50 of 1991 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Munsiff, Tarikere in O.S. No. 237 of 1989, dated 29th June, 1991 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement of sale executed by the defendant or in the alternative refund of advance amount or in the alternative if the Court comes to the conclusion that there is cancellation of agreement of sale, to declare that the plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had filed an application for amendment of the plaint to include additional particulars regarding revenue entries by adverse possession and the same has been concurrently rejected by the First Appellate Court...