Karnataka Court February 2005 Judgments
M.S. Suresh Vs. Smt. Parvathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1274; 2005(3)KarLJ386
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. An interesting question that arise for consideration in these Writ Petition is, whether the mother of a deceased child can maintain a suit, claiming partition against her husband and other members of the Joint Family.2. The marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 6.1.1994 at Laxminarayanaswamy Temple, Krishnarajapet. Within three months from their marriage, a male child was born to them on 23.3.1994 and the child died on the same day in the evening. When the child was in the womb of the respondent, the petitioner herein had executed a release deed on 19.1.1994 in favour of his father and remaining members of the petitioner's family. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed a divorce petition in M.C. 11/1996 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, (Sr.Divn.) and JMFC, Shirangapatna. The petition filed by the petitioner in M.C. No. 11/ 96 was dismissed on merits on 6.11.2000. The respondent-wife filed a suit for partition and separate possession...
Tag this Judgment!The Management, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (icar) Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KarLJ134
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.By the impugned award, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labor Court, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short) allowed the reference in C.R. No. 10 of 2001 and set aside the Order of termination passed by the Director General, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Indian Council of Agricultural Research ('ICAR') (hereinafter referred to as 'Management' for short). and consequently, directed the 'management' to reinstate the workman-respondent herein to her original post which she was holding on the date of termination with fall back wages and continuity of service. 2. The records disclose that the workman-respondent was appointed to the post of T-6 (Technical Officer/Librarian) on 17-3-1992 in the establishment of Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (ICAR) on a temporary basis. She was put on probation for a period of two years, which was extended from time to time. Ultimately, her services were terminated by Ord...
Tag this Judgment!Sri R. Kodandaramareddy and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2674; ILR2005KAR2037; 2005(4)KarLJ618
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J. 1. In these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the competent authority dated 10.1.2000 under Section 68-I of the NDPS Act, 1985, so far as it relates to the property bearing No. 467 (renumbered as 7/1 and 7/2), situated at S.R. Layout, Murugeshpalya, Bangalore, contending that they are full and absolute owners of site No. 467, S.R. Layout, Murugeshpalya, Bangalore, and that they had entered into an agreement with one Smt. Suganthi under Joint Development Agreement dated 4.3.1996. In terms of the agreement, Smt. Suganthi was required to complete the project within 24 months from the date of commencement of construction on the site and after completion of the building, 40% of the constructed area shall be given to the petitioners and 60% of undivided share along with building constructed thereon shall be held by the developer Smt. Suganthi who is third respondent in the petition. Annexure-A has been passed by the competent authority on ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghavendra Sherrigar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: [2005]142STC153(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This is a case which clearly reveals arbitrary and mala fide action on the part of the respondent No. 2 assessing officer.2. Though the record indicates that the assessee had, in fact, made it clear that he had opted for payment of tax by way of composition under the provisions of Section 17(6) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, before passing of the assessment order, though there is supporting material to this effect on the record itself, the assessing officer, nevertheless, denies the benefit of payment of tax by composition provided under Section 17(6) of the Act and has proceeded to pass the assessment order de hors the provision.3. The assessment order again suffers from a total non-application of mind as while assessing to tax the turnover under the provisions of Section 5-B of the Act, the assessing officer has levied tax on the entire turnover i.e., on the entire value of the works contract itself at 10 per cent without deducting the value of ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajashree Cement, Rep. by General Manager, Finance and Accounts and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: I(2005)ACC834; ILR2005KAR1356
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In these petitions the question that falls for consideration is 'Whether passing of a Legislation by itself confers a right on the Petitioners to file a Writ Petition unless a cause of action arises thereof?2. Petitioners are Companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is contended that they receive various notified goods from time to time from other States meant for use or consumption in their business. They have filed these Writ Petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Special Tax on Entry of Certain Goods Act, 2004, and the notifications issued thereunder in No. FD 133 CET 2004 dated 30.09.2004.3. I have heard Sri G. Sarangan, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and Niloufer Akbar, Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.4. The State Legislature has passed a Legislation called 'The Karnataka Special Tax on Entry of Certain Goods Act, 2004' (for short 'the Act') published in t...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Madan Kumar Stanley Vs. University of Agricultural Sciences and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ462
ORDERN.K. Patil, J. 1. The petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 15-3-2001 passed by the 1st respondent bearing No. AO:EST-V:LC:MKS:7188-B:2000-01 vide Annexure-H, has presented this writ petition.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that; the petitioner earlier had filed a writ petition before this Court in No. 18008 of 1999 against the recommendations of the Enquiry Committee at paras 4.01 and 4.04. The said writ petition was rejected of by this Court on 18th June, 1999 with the observation that, 'if any action has to be taken in pursuance of the report, such action can only be in accordance with law. Therefore, if any action is to be taken for cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Librarian in pursuance of the said report, necessarily the University has to issue a show-cause notice and hear the petitioner and then take a decision in accordance with law. It is open for the petitioner to file objections to the show-cause notice issued...
Tag this Judgment!S. Pitchumuthu Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KarLJ96
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioner claims to be a financier who had lent some money in favour of a person who was a purchaser of land that had been originally granted in favour of a scheduled caste person and subject to certain conditions. The land in question was subject-matter of proceedings before the Authorities under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, at the instance of the grantee or legal heir of the grantee for setting aside the transfer of the land for resumption of the same to the State and restoration to the applicant. It appears pursuant to that application an Order has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the Order dated 15-11- 2003 (copy at Annexure-E).2. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had instituted a civil suit for recovery of the amount that he had lent in favour of the purchaser-respondent 4 in this writ petition in O.S. No....
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Narayanappa and anr. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KarLJ75
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. In view of the prayers sought, these writ petitions can be disposed of at the preliminary hearing stage itself, Hence, Sri T.A. Ramachandraiah, learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice on behalf of the respondents.2. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties.3. The grievance of the petitioners is that their names are not found in the voters list and even though they submitted applications to include their names, no action is taken, thereby their statutory right to participate in the election is deprived. Hence, these writ petitions are filed praying to: (1) direct the 2nd respondent to include their names in the voters list for the year 2005; and (2) direct the 3rd respondent to accept the nomination papers of the petitioners and permit them to participate in the election of Gram Panchayat.4. So far as the first prayer is concerned, petitioners have produced Annexure-F and G, which are the acknowledgements in proof of filing applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna and ors. Vs. Marawadi Samaj and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: ILR2006KAR956; 2005(2)KarLJ539
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J. 1. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 221 of 2001 on the file of the First Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga. The first respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. Remaining respondents are the defendants.2. In the suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order 29, Rule 1 of the CPC requesting the Court to dismiss the suit as not maintainable and the application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Court below. Challenging the correctness of the order of the Trial Court, the present writ petition is filed.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.4. The short question that arises for consideration by this Court in this writ petition is:'Whether provisions of Order 29, Rule 1 of the CPC can be made applicable to the Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960? and whether the application of the petitioner can be allowed only on the ground that the petitioners' Society has become ...
Tag this Judgment!Y.S. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2111; 2005(2)KarLJ558
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. The petitioner claims to be an Archak of Anjaneyaswamy Temple. He had filed an application for grant of occupancy rights of lands measuring 31 guntas in Survey No. 643 situated at Yeragamballi Village, Yelandur Taluk, Mysore District. Likewise, respondents 3 and 4 had made applications for grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 20 guntas and 14 guntas respectively in the same Survey Number. The land in question was admittedly endowed to Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Yeragamballi.2. The Land Tribunal by an order dated 20-1-1981 had granted occupancy rights in respect of the said Survey Numbers in favour of respondents 3 and 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 2126 of 1983 and this Court by the Order dated 12-11-1984 quashed the said order on the ground that it was not a speaking order and directed the Land Tribunal to make a fresh enquiry in accordance with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »