Karnataka Court August 2005 Judgments

Cwt Vs. Chikymagalur Club

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Kar)609

H.L. Dattu, J.Since the parties in these reference proceedings are common, and since the issues involved are inter-related, both these cases are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. Facts in Income-tax Referred Case No. 120/1998 (Old TRC Nos. 120 123/1998) are as under -.The assessee is a club registered under the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. For the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84, the assesses-club had filed the return of wealth in the status of AOP declaring net wealth of Rs. 'nil'. Rejecting the claim made in the returns filed, the Wealth Tax Officer had assessed the wealth of the assessee in the status of individual and charged wealth-tax, under the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ('Act' hereinafter referred to as).3. In the appeals filed against these assessment orders, it was the stand of the assesses-club that it is an AOP and not liable for payment of wealth-tax. Reliance was placed on the decision of...

Shri R. Narayan Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Secretary to Government ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2005(107)FLR586]; ILR2005KAR4543; 2006(2)KarLJ595

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. The petitioner is calling in question the endorsement dated 31-10-2003 issued by the 3rd respondent- The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-C, rejecting his request for appointment on compassionate ground. He has further sought for a direction to the respondents to provide him an appointment to any of the Group-B post on compassionate ground in view of the death of his father in harness.2. It is the contention of the petitioner that his father Sri R. Rangaswamy who was working as Group-D employee in the M.E.S. College, Bangalore, died on 13.4.1999 while he was in service. At the time of the death of his father the petitioner was a minor. He attained the age of majority on 26.11.2000. Immediately after attaining the age of majority, he applied seeking appointment on compassionate ground. When his representation was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 44854/2001. This Court disposed of the said Wri...

C.R. Satyanarayanan Vs. Indian Overseas Bank

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(5)KarLJ540; (2005)IIILLJ772Kant

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 13-1-1998 passed by the Disciplinary Authority removing the petitioner from service and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 12-5-1998 rejecting the appeal and confirming the penalty imposed.2. Petitioner is an officer of the respondent-Bank who has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-10-1995. On certain allegations of misconduct, just prior to the date of retirement, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 7-10-1995. A charge-sheet dated 30-10-1995 alleging that the petitioner has committed certain acts of misconduct was served on him on 31-10-1995. The charges pertained to several acts of omission and commission on the part of the petitioner while working as Chief Manager of the Jayanagar 5th Block Branch, Bangalore. An additional charge-sheet dated 31-10-1995 came to be issued which was served on the petitioner on 3-11-1995. The additional ...

Maria Abhishegam Vs. Joyce Ebenezer and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005CriLJ4182; ILR2005KAR4442; 2005(5)KarLJ454

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. Petitioner and R-1 were husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 30.7.1980. A joint petition for consent divorce was filed by the petitioner and R-1 in M.C. 222/88 on the file of the Family Court at Bangalore and the marriage was dissolved on 31.10.1988. On the date of the presentation of the joint petition, petitioner and R-1 had two children viz., R-2 son who born on 28.5.1984 and a daughter by name Anitha who had born on 28.9.1981. In the divorce proceedings, R-1 declined to claim any maintenance from the petitioner as she was gainfully employed. In the year 2002, respondents herein filed a petition under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the petitioner herein. In the proceedings, an application for interim maintenance was also filed claiming monthly maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month for R-1 and Rs. 1500/- per month to R-2 son. On the application filed by the respondent, Trial Court has awarded a sum of 2500/- to R-1 herein. This ...

Sunil Venkatesh Hegde and anr. Vs. the Assistant Registrar of Co-opera ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR5001; 2005(5)KarLJ356

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 18-5-2005 passed by the first respondent, vide Annexure-A, have presented this writ petition.2. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that, they are the Ex-Directors of the second respondent-Bank. When they were the Directors of the second respondent-Bank, the first respondent and other authorities have not initiated any proceedings regarding the mis-management or misadministration of the second respondent-Bank. It appears that, behind the back of the petitioners, a proceeding has been initiated under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') and appointed an officer to submit the report. On the basis of the alleged report submitted by the Officer, the matter was referred to the concerned authority, as envisaged under Section 68 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order passed under Section 68 of the Act, petitioners hav...

Basavannappa (Deceased) by L.Rs. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR704; 2005(5)KarLJ478

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. Deceased Basavannappa was the owner of 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 132/2 situated at Gotur Village of Chittapur Taluk. Petitioners are his legal heirs.2. Land of the petitioners was taken over by the respondents in the year 1977 for the formation of a road from Mudgal to Kodla. Though the land of the petitioners was taken over for the formation of road, the same was not notified and acquired in accordance with law. Subsequently, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 23-10-1992 without including the petitioners' land and thereafter petitioners requested the respondents to include the land of the petitioners for acquisition on the ground that their land was also taken over for the formation of a road. Subsequently, a notification was issued as per Annexure-D including the land of the petitioners which was taken over for the formation of the road. Thereafter, an award was passed as per Annexure-F, dated 28-10-2002 and th...

Shyam Textiles (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer Keb

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR4651; 2006(5)KarLJ350

S.R. Nayak, J.1. This Writ appeal preferred by a consumer of electricity supplied by the respondent Board is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20th November, 2001 passed in W.P. No. 23808 of 2001. The learned Single Judge by the order under appeal has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.2. The background facts leading to filing of the writ petition, in brief, are as follows: The Appellant is a private limited company and consumer of electricity supplied by the respondent - Karnataka Electricity Board (for short 'the Board'). In the writ petition, the appellant questioned the correctness and legality of the demands raised by the Board in their demand notices dated 01.03.2001 and 16.06.2001. By those demands notices, the Board directed the appellant to pay the line fixed charges for the month of July, 1998 to June, 2001.3. The correctness and validity of those demand notices was assailed, as can be seen from para 2 of the Judgment of the l...

Abay Joseph Vs. the Tahsildar (Ulc) Section, Special Deputy Commission ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(5)KarLJ606

S.R. Nayak, J.1. Admit. With the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties, the appeal was heard finally.2. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17th December, 2004 passed in W.P. No. 49442 of 2004. In the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, the order of the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, dated 23-9-1985 marked as Annexure-A and endorsement dated 23-8-2004 marked as Annexure-J issued by it was assailed on various grounds. The validity of those two orders has been assailed on the following grounds:'13. The endorsement dated 23-8-2004 issued by the Deputy Commissioner is without authority of law. The notification issued under Section 10(3) by Deputy Commissioner on 23-9-1985, which is produced as Annexure-A was challenged, and no final order was passed on the appeal filed. When the exact amount of excess of land has not been finalised under the Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, the Deputy...

C. Govinda Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Karnataka

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The petitioner in M.V.C. No. 3 of 1995 sustained fracture of both the bones of right leg in a motor vehicle accident. The limb disability is assessed at 20 per cent. The total body disability is assessed at 8 per cent. Petitioner is doing scrap business. His income to be assessed at Rs. 2,000 p.m. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000 with interest at 6 per cent from the date of petition till payment. The Tribunal has directed the owner and the insurer to pay the compensation. Petitioner is in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.2. On re-examination of facts and evidence, petitioner is entitled to Rs. 30,000 for pain and agony, Rs. 10,000 for medical expenses and incidental expenses relating to treatment, Rs. 10,000 for loss of amenities and discomfort, Rs. 24,960 (Rs. 160 x 12x13) rounded off to Rs. 25,000 for loss of future income on account of disability, Rs. 6,000 for loss of income during treatment and Rs. 5,000 for another operation....

Sreenivas Lad Vs. Ekanath and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2005Kant405; 2005(6)KarLJ62

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal against the dismissal of his application tinder Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for brevity).2. The facts are as follows.--The appellant's suit is for partition and possession of l/8th share of the suit properties, for accounts and future profits, till the date of decree.It is the appellant's case that the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of late Vithal Rao Lad. The properties include extensive agricultural lands, buildings and a mining lease.Vithal Rao was married thrice. His first wife bore him one daughter, Smt. Shoba, respondent 7 herein. On the death of his first wife, he married for the second time and had four sons by the second wife, namely, Uday Singh, who died in 1990 leaving behind respondents 11 to 15 as his legal heirs, Hiroji (respondent 2), Shivaji, who died in 1992, leaving behind respondents 16 to 18 as his legal heirs and Ekanath (respondent 1). Wh...