Karnataka Court December 2005 Judgments

N. Bhoomanand Manay Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1513; 2006(1)KarLJ407

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. Petitioner holds a post-graduate qualification in engineering from Karnataka (UVCE) and from Yale University, USA. He was nominated as Chairman of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board on 26-2-2004 as per Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short, 'the Act') in place of Sri J. Alexander the then Chairman. The said notification made it clear that the terms and conditions of the appointment shall be notified separately. On 12-5-2004 a notification was issued prescribing the period for which he was appointed. The said notification stated that he shall be the Chairman for a period of three years with effect from 26-2-2004 or until further orders. Again by yet another notification dated 14-7-2004 issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5(9) of the Act read with Rule 13(2) of the Karnataka State Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution (Procedure for Transaction of Business) and the Water (Preve...

Streamline Finvest Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Kar)537; [2006]281ITR276(KAR); [2006]281ITR276(Karn)

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. These writ petitions (are) by a person who was the highest bidder in an auction sale conducted by the IT authorities who had put up for sale several parcels of properties they had acquired by pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C of the IT Act, 1961. In terms of public auction notice published in the Sunday Times of India on 28th July, 1996 indicating the sale of nine items of the properties mentioned therein to take place on 21st Aug., 1996 at conference hall, 2nd Floor, C.R. Buildings, Queens Road, Bangalore-1, amongst nine properties for sale on that day, the petitioner herein was the highest bidder in respect of the property figuring at serial Nos. 5 and 9. The petitioner had offered highest price participating in the auction bid in terms of the sale conditions which has been indicated in the notification.2. It is the plea of the petitioner that the petitioner had in respect of these two properties namely, No. 4/2-B, Hoodi Village, Mahadevapura Hob...

Shimoga Piston Rings Private Limited Vs. the State of Karnataka and an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR969; [2006]144STC490(Kar)

ORDERShylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner is a person registered under the Provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. Petitioner had been extended certain tax benefits, such as deferment of liability for a period of 8 years with effect from 12.7.1999 to 11.7.2007 in the light of certain industrial policy pursued by the State and to encourage growth of industries in certain areas.2. While the petitioner availed of such a benefit it appears that the products which the petitioner manufactures and sells are one which are now covered by the provisions of the VAT Act which has come into force with effect from 1.4.2005. The provisions of VAT Act under Section 42(3)(a) had provided for continuation of such benefit which had been conferred under the provisions of K.S.T. Act, 57 in respect of the goods produced by the petitioner and sold even after the VAT Act came into force till such time that the said goods are liable to tax under the VAT Act and for such purpose such persons were required to mak...

Sri Chandrasen Bapusaheb Jadhav and anr. Vs. Sri Gangappa Yallappa Hol ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1940

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Belgaum, in R.A. No. 40/1991 in allowing the appeal and setting the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S. No. 877 1986.2. Plaintiffs filed a suit before the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Belgaum in O.S. No. 87/1986 for possession of the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, suit property in Sy.No. 90/1B situated at Balekundri Khurd village measures 4 acres 2 guntas and is assessed at Rs. 9.72ps. The land is a watan land granted for officiating as Patil of the Village Officer under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 and Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1894. Plaintiffs state that Sy.No. 90/1 was divided into 90/1A and 90/1B. Originally the land was held by Balavantrao Parashuram Jadhav, Bapusaheb Parashuram Jadhav and Yeshwantrao Parashuram Jadhav. Since the land was resumed by the Gove...

A. and M. Distributors Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1131; (2008)11VST656(Karn)

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. Writ Petition by a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') complaining of an order dated 10-12-2001 (copy at Annexure-A) levying penalty in a sum of Rs. 1,96,961/- under the provisions of Section 28(3-A)(iv)(a) of the Act.2. The petitioner though had the statutory remedy of appeal to get over this order if it was not valid by preferring an appeal in terms of provisions of Section 20 of the Act, nevertheless, chose to approach this Court complaining of the validity of the very provision under which the penalty was levied contending that it is an unconstitutional provision, beyond the legislative competence of the State legislature and therefore the petitioner need not be compelled to avail of the statutory remedy etc,.3. Initially, after the issue of notice to the respondents on 19-12-2001, the matter had. been admitted on 12-4-2002 and certain interim order had also been granted in realisation of pen...

Wazeerkhan Kudachi Vs. Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity A ...

Court: Karnataka

P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is a beedi contractor who gets the beedies rolled through home workers. The 3rd respondent in this appeal is one such home worker who was engaged by the appellant in rolling beedies for him as a piece rated employee. The 3rd respondent after putting in fifteen years of service as a beedi roller under the employment of the appellant voluntarily resigned from his service with effect from 29th June, 1996. Since the claim of the 3rd respondent for payment of gratuity was not settled, the respondent made an application Under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking for payment of gratuity payable to him by the appellant. The appellant resisted the claim of the 3rd respondent inter alia contending that the Act is not applicable to the 3rd respondent who is a beedi roller and the calculation of the gratuity made by the 3rd respondent is also not correct. The 2nd respondent on consider...

G. Venkatappa Vs. State of Karnataka Revenue Department and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR521; 2006(1)KarLJ591

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner claims to be the owner in unauthorized occupation of Sy. No. 44/3 in Chokkahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.2. It is the version of the petitioner that an extent of 22 guntas of land adjacent of his land and also adjacent to Sy.No. 44 of this village has been encroached upon by the petitioner and the petitioner has been in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of this extent of 22 guntas of karab land.3. It appears the petitioner had filed an application for regularization of such unauthorized occupation and cultivation of the land; that certain developments had taken place, in this regard survey report and a report of the revenue inspector has also been submitted but the authorities having not considered the request of the petitioner favourably, the present writ petition is filed seeking for issue of directions to the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner.4. Submission of Sri Suresh S. ...

The Divisional Manager United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Yallappa Bhimapp ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(2006)ACC15; ILR2006KAR518

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appellant-II respondent granted permission under Section 170 of the M.V. Act by the Tribunal.2. The petitioner in MVC 895/00 sustained fracture of superior rymas of pubis on right side and lacerated wound 6' X 2' on the left ankle joint in the motor vehicle accident. The petitioner is operated. The total limb disability is assessed by the Doctor at 50%. The total body disability to be assessed at 16%. The petitioner is a minor and the notional income is to be assumed at Rs. 15000/- p.a.3. Rs. 35000/- to be awarded for pain and agony: medical bills are produced for Rs. 26255/- In all, the petitioner is awarded Rs. 40000/- for medical expenses and incidental expenses relating to treatment; Rs. 20000/- to be awarded for loss of amenities and discomfort on account of disability and Rs. 43200/- (2400X18 multiplier) to be awarded towards loss of future income on account of disability.4. The aggregate of compensation is little more than what is awarded by the Tribuna...

The Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr. Vs. Siddappa Laxmappa Ka ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(1)KarLJ543

N.K. Patil, J.1. These two appeals by the common appellants-Special Land Acquisition Officer, MP-I, Saundatti and another, are directed against the judgment and award dated 29th May, 2004 in LAC No. 11 of 2002 and LAC No. 12 of 2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saundatti, on the ground that, the enhancement made by the Reference Court in excessive.2. The land in Sy. No. 59 measuring 0-20 guntas and Sy. No. 139 measuring 0.23 guntas, situate in Hosakeri Village, Ramdurga Taluk, have been notified and acquired by the State through the appellants herein for the purpose of formation of 'Malaprabha Left Bank Canal', vide preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 3-6-1999. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award on 8-5-2001 fixing the market value of the lands in question at Rs. 24,000/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, respondents-claimants filed application under...

C.C. Kondaiah Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR506(Kar); 2006(2)KarLJ85

R. Gururajan, J.1. All these appeals are directed against a common order dated 12-12-2003 passed in A.C. Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 2003 by the Principal District Judge, Mysore,2. Facts in brief are as under:Appellant-Kondaiah, Class I Contractor, was awarded work of providing water supply components to three villages in Mysore District under slice No. MYS 10 under the contract agreement No. 7/98-99, dated 13-7-1998. During the execution of the work and thereafter certain claims have arisen out of and in connection with the contract and were submitted by the appellant in a consolidated list of claims in letter dated 8-5-2002 to the respondent for settlement under provisions of Clause 24 of the general conditions of the contract. No reply was submitted by the respondent. Hence disputes were referred to an Arbitrator in terms of Condition 2. Claim statement was submitted to the Arbitrator for settlement with a copy to the respondent. Number of meetings were held. Respondent did not attend to ...