Karnataka Court April 2005 Judgments

Union Bank of India Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Reco ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2007)BC507; [2006]129CompCas399(Kar); (2005)IIILLJ711Kant

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner Union Bank of India is challenging an order dated June 19, 2002 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer in terms of Annexure F, insofar as it relates to the attachment and sale of immovable property described in the said order which is mortgaged in favour of the petitioner.2. Facts in brief are as under:Petitioner Bank has a branch at Bangalore, 2nd respondent Devatha Saree Mandir is one of the constituents of the petitioner. In respect of the liabilities due by the said proprietary concern represented by its proprietor Sri. D.R. Ajit Kumar, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 193/2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, on April 12, 2002 for recovery of Rs. 67,87,619.00. 3rd respondent is one of the guarantors and also the mortgagor of the immovable property being site No. 44, BSK II stage, Bangalore. The said property was mortgaged by way of equitable mortgage by depositing the documents of title in favour of th...

L.G. Electronics India Private Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka Represented ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR5814; (2007)8VST495(Karn)

ORDERAbdul Nazeer, J.1. Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and is a Dealer registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'KST Act') and Central Sales Tax, 1956 (for short 'CST Act'). The Assessing Authority of the Petitioner is the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assts. 41-Fast Track), Bangalore City Division IV, Bangalore.2. The Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence-XII) (4th respondent herein) inspected the premises of the Petitioner on 05.06.2003 and seized certain documents. He issued a notice dated 17.04.2004 under Section 29 of the KST Act for compounding the offences in terms of the said notice. The Joint Commissioner of commercial Taxes (Intelligence), South Zone (Respondent No. 3) permitted the 4th respondent to make provisional assessment as per Section 28(6) of the KST Act on 02.08.2004. Thereafter, the 4th respondent has passed the orders under Section 28(6) of the Act on 21.08.2004 as per Annexure 'G' and H respectively.3. ...

Syed Amanulla S/O Syed Abdul Khadar Vs. B.K. Venkatesh (Rajanna) S/O K ...

Court: Karnataka

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The first respondent is the earner of sawmill and the tractor-traitor in question. The first respondent was utilising the tractor-trailer for the sawmill business. The petitioner is an employee of a sawmill, his job is also to attend to the loading and unloading work. During the process of loading of logs to the tractor-trailer one of the logs fell on the petitioner resulting in fracture of a leg. The petitioner filed claim before the W.C. Commissioner.2. One B.K. Venkatesh @ Rajanna, is named as the owner of the sawmill in the petition. In the FIR one Rajanna is named as the owner of the tractor-trailer. The W.C. Commissioner comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove that Rajanna and B.K. Venkatesh are one and the same person and that Rajanna is the alias name of B.K. Venkatesh, hence dismissed the petition. The petitioner is in appeal.3. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.Whether the finding of...

Dr. Y. Nagappa Vs. P. Shanumakanagouda and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2005Kant304; IV(2005)BC119; ILR2005KAR1687

ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The impugned order has been passed even before issuing suit summons to the Defendants. Therefore notice to Defendants is dispensed with.2. Heard arguments for final disposal.3. The brief facts of the case of the Petitioner/Plaintiff may be stated as under :-That the Petitioner/Plaintiff filed a suit on 6.1.2005 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 86,410/- from the Respondents/Defendants on the basis of a pronote executed on 6.1.2002. When the Suit was posted for hearing on office objections of maintainability, though the Advocate for the Plaintiff was absent, Court-below after perusing the plaint averments came to the conclusion that the suit was barred by time and dismissed the Suit as not maintainable. This is impugned in this Petition.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that the Court-below without examining Section 12 of the Limitation Act and without affording an opportunity, dismissed the Suit as not maintainable. He cited a decision of...

The Editor, Deccan Herald Vs. Prof. M.S. Ramaraju

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005CriLJ2672; ILR2005KAR1907; 2005(3)KarLJ579

V. Jagannathan, J.1. This criminal petition is directed against the order dated 6.8.2001 passed by the VIII Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore, in C.C. No. 18468/2001 taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioner herein and 19 others for the offence of defamation punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of the I.P.C. The petitioner is Accused No. 20 in the said case before the learned Magistrate.2. The facts in brief leading to this petition are that, the petitioner, being the Editor of Deccan Herald newspaper, Bangalore, published a news item bearing date 5.5.1999 (as per Annexure-B) to the effect that the Management of Sheshadripuram Law College had suspended the Principal and two other staff members as a sequel to an incident relating to the first year law student being caught red handed by the vigilance squad, while she was writing the examination at a lodge in Sheshadripuram. It is the petitioner's case that the Secretary of Sheshadripuram Education Trust, one Mr. Purushottam, se...

Smt. Saraswathamma Vs. H. Sharad Shrikande and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2005Kant292; 2005(4)KarLJ181

B.S. Patil, J. 1. There is delay of 40 days in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay is taken up along with the main matter.2. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed objections to the IA for condonation of delay and has strongly objected for the same. We have considered the reasons assigned by the appellant in the affidavit filed by her in support of the prayer for condonation of delay. We are of the view that sufficient cause is made out and the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned in the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, application I.A. I of 2002 is allowed and delay of 40 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The matter is heard for final hearing with the consent of the parties.3. Suit for specific performance of the contract filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein has been decreed. The defendants 1 and 2 (appellant and respondent 3 in this appeal respectively) are directed to execute registered sale deed in respect of the suit pro...