Karnataka Court July 2005 Judgments

Tukaram Ganu Pawar Vs. Chandra Atma Pawar

Court: Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant in the suit. The appellant contends that he is the owner of the land in RS No. 231/2B measuring 7 acres 29 guntas in Kokatanur Village, Athani Taluk, Belgaum District. Out of this extent of land, it is the contention of the appellant, that 2 acres 23 guntas was mortgaged with a Bank, it is his case that he is an illiterate and aged person and for the purpose of availing the loan he had taken the assistance of the respondent, who is his nephew, for the preparation of the papers seeking extension of loan. It is alleged that the respondent had surreptitiously obtained his signatures on an agreement of sale in respect of the land measuring 2 acres 23 guntas while preparing the documentation for the loan as aforesaid. It is this agreement, which is set up by him in the suit seeking specific performance and with an interlocutory application seeking temporary injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his possession. The Tr...

Sangeetha Enterprises Vs. the District Magistrate

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR3380; 2005(5)KarLJ23

ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. Since the instant writ petition has been listed for preliminary hearing, I have taken up the matter for final disposal. Hence, Rule is issued.2. The learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondent.3. It is the complaint of the petitioner is that the respondent-District Magistrate was insisting upon him for production of entertainments tax clearance certificate from the competent Authority, probably that was done by him for the reason that somewhere in the year 1985, Sub-clause (iii) of Rule 85 of Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 came to be inserted to say that for the purpose of renewal of licence, production of entertainments tax clearance certificate has to be produced.4. During the course of argument, Sri Chandrashekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, had produced a xerox copy of judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 19904/1985 (DD 30.6.1992).5. As I see, in the above decision, the Division Bench h...

industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commis ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR3500; (2007)10VST381(Karn)

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar J,1. Petitioner, in this writ petition is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent - the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes not to enforce any recovery proceedings as against the petitioner under demand notices at Annexure-C and D where under the petitioner was called upon to make good the total tax liability of Rs. 16,25,885/- for the assessment years 1987-1988 to 1993-94 and a sum of Rs. 12,76,111/- in respect of the assessment year 1995-96. Petitioner is seeking for issue of a restraint order on the 1st respondent on the premise that the petitioner has filed application in Form 6-A under Rule 20-A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957, praying for extending the facility of installments in terms of its application dated 18.7.2003; that even during the consideration of such application the 1st respondent should not be permitted to ...

Sudhir Kumar Vs. G. Lakshman

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005CriLJ4173; ILR2005KAR4191

ORDERMohan Shantana Goudar, J.1. The application filed by the Petitioner Under Section 197 Cr. P.C. r/w Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act and Section 40 of the Indian Arms Act before the trial Court is rejected. The said order is confirmed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 05/2003. Both these orders are assailed in this criminal revision petition.2. Heard the learned S.P.P, appearing for the petitioner and Sri. A.H. Bhagwan learned Advocate appearing for the respondent and persued the records.3. The records disclose that the petitioner herein who was working as Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Bellary from 01-06-1984 to 13-02-1987 raided the premises of M/S. Dwaraka Arms Stores belonging to the respondent herein along with certain police officers on 12.10.1984 to 20.10.1984 and seized certain number of documents and articles. He lodged complaint on 18.10.1984 before the Superintendent of Police, Bellary and the same is registered against the firm...

Vishnukanthi Vs. P. Shanmugam

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1322; 2006(5)KarLJ313

V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The respondent herein was the common plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) and the Appellant was 3rd defendant in O.S.No. 1512/91 and sole defendant in O.S.No. 5019/93 (hereinafter referred to as defendant).2. The premises involved in the these matters is a residential quarter belonging to Bangalore City Corporation, which is now Mahanagara Palike, Originally one Mari was the tenant of the same. He had two wives. One of the wife had no issues and hence he adopted the plaintiff. The defendant is the grand daughter of Mari born to the other wife. It is the case of the parties that after the death of original tenant Man, both plaintiff and defendants lived in the suit schedule premises in different portions.3. The plaintiff filed O.S.No. 1512/91 against the Commissioner and Deputy Revenue Officer of Bangalore City Corporation (defendants 1 and 2) and the 3rd respondent/defendant seeking injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from registering occupancy r...

Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2008)11VST143(Karn)

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition is by a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act').Petitioner is aggrieved by a provisional assessment order bearing No. JCCT (INT) SZ. DCCT (INT-I), INS-02/04-05, dated December 13, 2004 (copy at annexure J), passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes--respondent No. 1 herein, who had an occasion to inspect the business premises of the petitioner on March 20, 2004 and had followed up by issue of a proposition notice for provisional assessment on March 26, 2004 and the proceedings culminating in the provisional assessment order dated December 13, 2004.2. The only ground entertained for examination of this writ petition is the challenge to the provisional assessment order on the premise that the respondent No. 1 lacked jurisdiction to pass the said provisional assessment order in terms of Sub-section (6) of Section 28 of the Act for the reason that the provisional assessment ...

Kalpatharu Hotels and ors. Vs. Mysore Mahanagara Palike

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR3547; 2005(5)KarLJ103

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. Briefly stated the factual matrix is:The property in question was conveyed to an organisation known as Mysore Musical Association, under a sale deed of the year 1977, by the Mysore City Corporation. The said organisation, without of course using the property for any of the purposes for which it was constituted, however, being the absolute owner of the property, conveyed the same in favour of the petitioners under a registered deed of sale of the year 2001. The respondent corporation on the premise that the vendor of the petitioner did not utilize the property for the purpose for which it was conveyed, sought to recover possession by cancelling the sale deed of the year 1977, as is evident from the resolution Annexure 'H'. It transpires that the State Government by order dated 20.9.2001, Annexure 'J', on a detailed examination of the matter with reference to the resolution Annexure 'H', held that the sale was legal, valid and conclusive while granting permissi...

The President Labour Organisation of Hal Vs. the Management of Hindust ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2005(107)FLR241]; ILR2005KAR4163

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act. In the respondent industry there is one more registered trade union by name Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Association which is the recognised trade union which represents more than 80% of the employees. The petitioner union raised a demand for, payment of 20% bonus and appointments on compassionate ground to the Wards of the employees of HAL who died in harness. When the respondent did not respond to the aforesaid demand, the Executive Committee of the petitioner passed a resolution on 27.10.1991 resolving to raise a dispute in respect of the aforesaid two claims. Before the conciliation officer the respondent contended that the petitioner union has no locus standi to espouse the cause on behalf of the employees of the establishment as there is a recognised registered trade union. Conciliation having failed the appropriate Government referred the industrial dispute for adjudic...

Associated Traders and Engineers Limited and anr. Vs. J. Nagaraj and o ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR3383; 2005(5)KarLJ78

V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The Appellants were defendants and respondents were plaintiffs in the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience they are referred to as such.2. The plaintiffs filed suit in O.S. No. 876/2004 against the defendants for ejectment and for future mesne profits. The defendants opposed the suit, denied the plaint averments and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The suit went for trial. Parties adduced evidence and produced documents in support of their respective case. Upon appreciation of the material placed on record, the trial Court by its judgment under appeal decreed the suit directing the defendants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises and directing enquiry regarding future mesne profits. Questioning the legality and correctness of the same, the defendants have filed this appeal.3. The defendants took a stand on the basis of admission of PW-1 that they are not the owners but their mother is given life interest under the Will executed...

Rajesab Vs. the Karnataka State by Its Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR4257

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. MFA 5347/01 is directed against that portion of the common order pertaining to I.A. XI which was filed by the fourth respondent with a prayer to reject the petition for non-payment of fees of Rs. 100/- on the Election Petition treating the same as a violation and non-compliance of a mandatory provision. The Trial Court has allowed the said application holding that in terms of Rule 69 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1977 ('the Rules', for short) read with Section 117 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.2. Rule 69 of the Rules reads as follows:-'69. Fee to be paid on an election petition-Every election petition shall be accompanied by a Government Treasury receipt showing that a deposit of one hundred rupees has been made by the petitioner either in the Reserve Bank of India or in a Government Treasury or in any Branch of the State Bank of India in favour of the Commissioner.'It is the appellant's contention that Rule 69 provi...