Karnataka Court March 2005 Judgments

Rudrachari Vs. the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR1870; 2005(3)KarLJ555

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. Petitioner is a Blacksmith by profession and is undertaking repair works of bullock carts. While manufacturing wooden wheels and other accessories required for the bullock carts, petitioner has installed 24' C.I. Bend Saw Machine, Respondents have seized the machine on 18.8.2000 on the ground that the same has been installed without obtaining any license. Therefore, present petition is filed by him contending that he is not liable to obtain a license to install such machine and to direct the respondents to return the seized machine.2. By virtue of an interim order granted by this court, machine in question is released to the petitioner. Therefore, what is to be considered by this court in this writ petition is whether petitioner has to obtain license under the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 to install such a machine. Rule-163 provides for control of private saw pits, saw mills or any other sawing contrivances. Rule-163(1) & (2) reads as hereunder:'163 Control of...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. ProducIn P. Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Kar)393; [2007]290ITR598(KAR); [2007]290ITR598(Karn)

H.L. Dattu, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law, which according to him, would arise out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, in I.T.A. Nos. 594-596 of 1992 and 1048, 1049 and 1050 of 1991, for our consideration and opinion.2 The parties to these proceedings are common. The assessment years are 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, respectively.3 In I.T.R.C. Nos. 280, 281 and 282 of 1998, the question of law referred for our consideration and opinion is:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that interest received by the assessee on the surplus funds kept with banks as short-term deposits should be treated as business income 4. In I.T.R.C. Nos. 284 and 285 of 1998, the following question of law is referred for our consideration and opinion:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that presentatio...

H.P. Basavana Gowda Vs. the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisitio ...

Court: Karnataka

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The land of the claimant bearing Sy. No. 117 of Hebbal Village of Davanagere Taluk measuring 4 acres 23 guntas was acquired for public purpose in the year 1974 by preliminary notification. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO' for short) assessed the value per acre at Rs. 3,250/-. The Reference Court held that out of 4 acres 23 guntas, 2 acre is garden land and granted compensation at Rs. 35,000/- per acre. The rest of the land is treated as dry land and granted compensation of Rs. 7,500/- per acre and solatium at 30% and interest at 9% p.a., on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of deposit.2. The record and the evidence discussed by the Reference Court disclose that there is a well situate in Sy. No. 117; The total extent of Sy. No. 117 is 5 acres, out of which 4 acres 23 guntas is acquired, including the well. There are 23 tamarind trees, 26 mango trees and 6 cashew trees existing in the land acquired by the State...

The Himalaya Drug Co. Vs. Himalaya Drug Co. Karmikara Sangha

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2005(105)FLR665]; ILR2005KAR1496; 2005(2)KarLJ527; (2005)IILLJ980Kant

ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has called in question the award dated 30.7.1999 in ID.No. 2/93 passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore,2. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of ayurvedic medicines. Upto 1993, the petitioner entered into settlements on wage structure and other service conditions of workmen with Bangalore Mazdoor Sangh (hereinafter called the 'Sangha') which was the recognised Union and the last settlement was signed on 18.4.1990. This settlement was to expire on 30.10.1992. In 1992, a section of the workers formed respondent-Union (hereinafter called the 'Union'). Thus by October 1992, there came to be two groups i.e., the Sangha and the respondent-Union.3. The Union submitted a charter of demands on 30.10.1992 and on 7.12.1992. The petitioner did not consider the demands of Union and the matter was taken to conciliation. During the pendency of conciliation proceedings, the petitioner entered into a settlement with the Sangha ...

Shivaji Vs. Malaprabha Grameena Bank and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ467

ORDERN.K. Patil, J. 1. The petitioners in these petitions, assailing the correctness of the impugned circular dated 3rd November, 2000 issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-J in respect of norms provided for filing up of posts of clerk from the cadre of Messenger-cum-Sweeper, have presented the instant writ petitions. Further, the petitioners have sought for a direction, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the circular dated 21st April, 1997 and declare that, without considering the case of petitioners in terms of the circular dated 21st April, 1997 and resorting to fill up the posts by means of the norms as contemplated under the circular dated 3rd November, 2000 is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.2. The grievance of the petitioners in these petitions is that, petitioner in first petition and petitioner in second petition were initially appointed as Probationary Messenger-cum-Sw...

K.H. Srinivasan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ434

ORDERS.R. Nayak, J. 1. Since all these writ petitions were directed against the same judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore (for short, 'the Tribunal') dated 15th March, 2001 passed in O.A. No. 655 of 2000, we clubbed all the writ petitions, heard them together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. At this stage itself, it needs to be noticed that Writ Petition No. 14842 of 2001 preferred against the same judgment of the Tribunal filed by late Sri S.S. Annegowda came to be closed as having become abated vide Order of this Court dated 21st August, 2003.2. The background facts leading to the filing of the Original Application No. 655 of 2000 be noted in brief in the first instance and they are as follows: The fourth respondent, namely, Sri B. Kamalanabhan in Writ Petition No. 14837 of 2001 is the applicant in O.A. No. 655 of 2000 (hereinafter referred as the 'applicant'), for the sake of convenience. The applicant was initially appoi...

Dyavappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ554

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition is by a purchaser who had purchased an extent of 1 acre of land in terms of sale deed dated 4-3-1970 of a land that had been originally granted free of cost in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community in terms of grant order dated 21-12-1955.2. Under the grant order, an extent of 2 acres had been granted in favour of one Sri Hanumappa, out of which an extent of 1 acre had came to be sold to the father of the petitioner in terms of sale deed dated 4-3-1970 and another extent of land also had been sold in the year 1995.3. The legal heir of Sri Hanumappa viz., Dasappa had filed a case before the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 praying for invalidation of the sale transaction, for resumption of land to the State and for restitution in his favour. The Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the purchaser and ...

Kapoor Constructions Vs. Leela Nagaraj and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2005Kant302; 2005(5)KarLJ602

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and has filed a suit against the respondents herein in .S. No. 9066 of 2003 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, for the relief of specific performance to enforce the agreement of sale dt. 27-11-2002 in respect of the suit property. The suit property is a site bearing No. 2, Khaneshumari No. 74 measuring 9250 sq. ft. carved out of Sy. No. 156/2 and 144/3 of Chellakere village, K. R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The plaintiff has agreed to purchase the above property from the defendants for Rs. 18,00,000/-.2. As per Clause 5 of the agreement, the petitioner was put in possession of the property which reads as hereunder :'That the First Party puts the Second Party in physical possession of the schedule property for the purpose of developing the same.'On the ground that the defendants did not execute the sale deed as agreed upon though the petitioner war, ready and willing to perform his part of th...

Ningamma Belavanagi Vs. the Management of N.E.K.R.T.C.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2005(107)FLR247]; ILR2005KAR3427

ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. One D.N. Belavanagi was working as a driver under the respondent on probation and his services were regularised on 16.11.1992. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 11.7.1997. An Industrial dispute was raised challenging the dismissal in KID No. 85/1997. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of D.N. Belavanagi by an award dated 22.5.2001.2. After the award, the delinquent official did not report for duty. The respondent issued a Memo at Annexure-B dated 23.5.2002 directing the employee to come and join for duty immediately. The employee D.N. Belavanagi died on 30.4.2003. The petitioner is the wife of the deceased D.N. Belavanagi. She has made an application for appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent-Management rejected the application on the ground that D.N. Belavanagi abandoned his duties and did not join the duty after the reinstatement order.3. In the petition averments, it is stated that D.N. Belavanagi was suffering from chronic Tub...

Sundara Mesta BIn Timmappa Mesta Vs. Land Tribunal Represented by Its ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR4513; 2005(5)KarLJ515

Abdul Nazeer, J.1. Petitioner claims to be an agricultural Laborer as defined under Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'K.L.R. Act'). He made an application in terms of Section 38 of the K.L.R. Act in Form No. 2-A for registering him as the owner of 5 cents of landing Sy.No. 213/4 of Kundapur village. The Land Tribunal allowed his application by the order dated 8-9-1982 (Annexure-A), and issued a direction for registering him as the owner of the said 5 cents of land consisting of a dwelling house, In the year 1993 he wanted to avail loan from a local society by mortgaging the said property. When he approached the society for the said purpose, the officials of the Society asked him to secure R.T.C. and other documents relating to the said land. Therefore, he approached the Revenue Authorities and the Land Tribunal and came to know that the occupancy rights of the said land was granted in favour of the 4th respondent to an extent of 14 cents b...