Karnataka Court June 2005 Judgments
Abdul Gafoor Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2005
Reported in: (2007)7VST252(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar J.1. All these petitions are by dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'), who are aggrieved by the orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officers at check-posts and the Commercial Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, who had occasion to intercept the goods vehicles carrying the goods taxable under the Act. In all these instances, the respondent-officers having passed orders in exercise of the power under Section 28-AAA of the Act for effecting compulsory purchase of the goods in question at the price as declared in the supporting documents and the petitioners having been deprived of such goods and in the light of the orders being entitled to receive only the price as had been indicated therein, are before this court challenging the legality of these orders, while also questioning the constitutional validity of the very provision, namely, Section 28-AAA of the Act, which reads as under:28-AAA. Power to purchase in case of under valuation of go...
Tag this Judgment!Devaraju H C and anr. Vs. the Special Lao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR5528; 2006(5)KarLJ407
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The office has raised an objection that the appellant has challenged the order passed on an application filed under Section. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 before the trial Court, seeking condonation of delay in filing an application to bring the Legal representatives of the deceased applicant on record before the trial Court and for setting aside the abatement.2. Since the applications was filed under Section. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which was rejected in the first instance and since the other applications were not considered on merits and were rejected as a consequence, the office has raised an objection that the appellant would have to file a revision petition, if at all, and he could not have filed the present appeal.3. this Court while dealing with an identical situation in a case reported in Sharanappa v. Hafeezuddin Ansari and Ors., 1982 (2) KLJ 29 His Lordship Justice Swami as he then was, has held thus at paras 6 and 7 :6. 'In my opinion, the af...
Tag this Judgment!Veeramadaiah and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3699; ILR2005KAR3191; 2006(3)KarLJ418
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Sri P.M. Nawaz, learned H.C.GP., takes notice on behalf of the Respondent-State. Heard the learned Advocates on both sides and perused the material on record.2. During the trial of S.C. No. 146/2002, P.W.s. 1 to 3 have deposed implicating the Petitioners herein in their examination-in-chief. On the said basis, the public prosecutor filed application Under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., and prayed the trial Court to issue summons against the petitioners herein. Said application was allowed by the impugned order, which is under challenge in this Criminal Petition.3. Heard Sri. N.S. Sampangiramaiah, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as Sri. P.M. Nawaz, learned HCGP, for respondent-State.4. Merely because some statements are made against these petitioners, they cannot be impleaded as accused in a mechanical manner. There cannot be any dispute that power to summon certain person, as accused in a pending trial is an extraordinary power conferred on Courts, ...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumath Bheemappa Sanadi and ors. Vs. Rudrappa Thammanna Sanadi and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant393; ILR2005KAR3430
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gokak, in RA. 30/1998 dated 5.12.2002 reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 692/89 by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Raibag and consequently dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 692/89.2. 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 plaintiffs filed the suit seeking for a decree for equitable partition awarding 2/3rd share or legitimate share of the plaintiffs with separate possession in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and for mesne profits and costs.3. It is averred in the plaint that Hanamant Sanadi was the original propositus. He had three sons by name Tammani, Yamanappa and Bhimappa and two daughters Kallawwa and Kashavva. Kallawwa and Kashawa have died. The plaintiff No. 6 is t...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar @ Narayana Vs. State by Subramanya Nagar P.S.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR3368; 2006(4)KarLJ268
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28-5-2002 passed by the Learned Session Judge, Bangalore in S.C.No. 279/2001, finding the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 302, 363 and 201 IPC, the present appeal is filed.2. The brief facts according to the prosecution giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:PW. 1 H. Jayaram and his wife Bhagyamma-PW.2 were residents of Bangalore. PW. 1 is an autorickshaw driver by profession. According to the prosecution, the accused Kumar was also an autorickshaw driver and as such, PW. 1 knew him very well. The couple-PWs.1 and 2 had three children, out of whom, the victim Shwetha was aged three years at the relevant point of time. According to the prosecution, on 30-6-93 as there was festival in the house of PW.1's mother, while he was taking Shwetha to his mother's house at Gayathrinagar, on the way, the accused met PW. 1 and requested him to give drop till Gayathrinagar as he was proceedi...
Tag this Judgment!Sujatha Babu Nakaman Vs. Special Officer, Centralised Admission Cell a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: ILR2006KAR741; 2005(5)KarLJ228
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. Petitioner had appeared in Common Entrance Test conducted by the first respondent for admission to B.Ed. Course for the Academic year 2004-05. She was selected by the first respondent under the Government quota, in general merit group. She was allotted to the 3rd respondent-College. The petitioner has deposited the admission fee of Rs. 9,985/- on 29-11-2004. Petitioner joined the 3rd respondent-College on 4-12-2004. She has paid Rs. 2,062/- towards fees to the said college at the time of her admission.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent-College has sent a telegram on 16-12-2004 informing her that the classes have commenced and that she is not eligible for admission to the said course. On 17-12-2004, she went to the College and met the Principal of the College who informed her that the College has received communication from the first respondent-University stating that the petitioner is not eligible for admission to the said course. She...
Tag this Judgment!Dynamatic Technologies Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(186)ELT277(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [for short, the Act], proposing recovery of certain amount for the reason that it had been erroneously refunded to the petitioner.2. The petitioner has approached this Court questioning the legality of such a notice on the premise that the refund itself has been given to the petitioner in terms of the directions issued by the Appellate Commissioner in an appeal preferred by the petitioner and as a sequel to the order-in-appeal.3. Notice had been issued to the respondents. Respondents have entered appearance through Sri Veerendra Sharma, learned Central Government Standing Counsel.4. Though the department initially wanted to assert that the notice has been issued only by way of protective measure and that in the event of the department succeeding in their appeal before the Tribunal, preferred against the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner, when the departme...
Tag this Judgment!Sai Ramesh K. Vs. Secretary, R. and D. Consultant P. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: [2005]128CompCas129(Kar); ILR2006KAR1727; 2006(4)KarLJ367
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants in the trial court. For the sake of convenience they are referred to in this judgment as per their rank in the trial court.2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 865 of 2000 against the defendants for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from transferring 500 shares to any other person and for a mandatory injunction to direct it to issue the said shares in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that he purchased those shares and sent them to his broker to transfer in his and wife's name. However, the said shares had been transferred in the name of the second defendant. In those circumstances the suit was filed by the plaintiff.3. After trial, the suit was dismissed by the trial court. It has held that the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that Nereyeth Securities (P.) Ltd., from whom he purchased the shares, was the owner in lawful possession of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Manjunath Pol Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented by Its Secretar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR5490; 2006(3)KarLJ276
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. Petitioner has completed Pre-University Course (for short 'PUC') during the academic year 2003-2004. In the said examination he has admittedly secured 53 marks in Physics, 88 marks in Chemistry, 39 marks in Biology and 30 marks in English. He is a scheduled caste candidate. He has appeared for common entrance test for selection of students to M.B.B.S., B.E., and B.D.S. Courses for the academic year 2004-2005. He has secured Rank No. 31280 (Medical). He was not considered for admission to B.D.S. Course because he had not secured 40% marks in English subject in PUC. Therefore, he had filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 26782/2004 for quashing condition No. 3 in the Application Form which stipulates the requirements of securing 40% marks by a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and Category- I candidates in order to be eligible for admission to B.D.S. Course. That Writ Petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.08.2004. Therefore, he has filed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasanth Satyanarayana Hegde Vs. the Managing Director Karnataka Neerav ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Kant37; III(2006)BC250; ILR2005KAR5796
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. Plaintiff has filed the present petition questioning the order passed by the learned Trial Judge rejecting his application I.A. No. 2. I.A. No. 2 is filed by the Plaintiff to reject the Written Statement filed by defendants No. 1 to 3 in the said suit. Defendants 1 to 4 are respondents 1 to 4.2. The matter arises in the following manner:During the course of this order, parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Trial Court. Plaintiff-Petitioner has filed a suit against the defendants-respondents for recovery of Rs. 1,84,92,768/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty-four lakhs Ninety-two thousand and seven hundred sixty-eight) towards the work done by him for the purpose of construction of a canal. The suit was filed on 2-12-2003. The suit summons were issued and served on the 3rd defendant on 25-2-2004. On 3-3-2004, the 3rd defendant entered appearance. In so far as the other defendants are concerned, i.e. defendants-1,2 and 4 since the suit summons were not a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »