Karnataka Court January 2006 Judgments

Sachidananda K. and ors. Vs. Bangalore University and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1387; 2006(2)KarLJ216

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the Notification dated 6-7-2005 vide Annexure-C issued by the Assistant Registrar, Bangalore University, notifying the appointment of respondents 4 to 13 as temporary lecturers in the University Law College, Bangalore. Petitioners are also seeking for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to select and appoint them to the post of part-time and full-time lecturers in Law in the University Law College strictly following the provisions of Section 53 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 and the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualification required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in University and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000.2. The 3 petitioners are Advocates practicing in Bangalore. They have passed Masters Degree in Law with distinction in different branches of law. They have been teaching in the University Law College as Part-time Lecturers since last few...

Shakthi Hill Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commerci ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)5VST412(Karn)

H.L. Dattu, J.1. The appellant is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Act, 1957') and also registered as 'tourism industry' with the Director of Tourism, Department of Tourism, Government of Karnataka, as category 'B' unit of industry located at Halagevaderahally, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.2. The assessee for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 had filed annual return of turnover and had declared the sales turnover of food and drinks at Rs. 28,91,755 and Rs. 27,65,150, respectively, and claimed exemption on the entire turnover by placing reliance on the tourism policy of Karnataka and the package of incentives and concessions offered to the tourism industry by the State Government in its Order No. ITY. 9. TTT. 89, dated May 30, 1992 and the certificate issued by the Director of Tourism in No. DTR/HTLS/11/94/ 05/210, dated April 9, 1997, since the sale of 'drinks' not onl...

Chenna Byrappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2006Kant226

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Heard Sri M. Shivaprakash, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C. Venkatapathi, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.2. The petitioner has sought for quashing the acquisition Notification vide Annexure 'A' to the petition, by which the petitioner's land bearing Survey No. 102/1, measuring 14 guntas, situated at Yentiganahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamanagala Taluk, which was acquired for the purpose of granting of house sites.3. The records disclose that the preliminary Notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Acquisition of lands for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972, was published on 26th September 1978. The name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. No. 6 in the said Notification. Subsequently, the final notification is issued on 15th December 1983. Though the final notification is issued as back as in the year 1983, till this day, no award is passed by the responde...

B.S.D. Nagaraju Vs. State by Health and Food Inspector, Mysore City Co ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(6)KarLJ278

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. The petitioner-accused filed this revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mysore in C.C. No. 79 of 1988 for the offence punishable under Section 16(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the said order of conviction has been affirmed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysore in Cri. A. No. 115 of 1992, dismissing the appeal.2. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has come up with this criminal revision petition mainly on the ground that the Court below has committed a grave error in placing total reliance and absolute faith on the sole evidence of P. W. 1 the Health and Food Inspector who is naturally an interested person and whose sole aim and object is to succeed in the prosecution. Instead of drawing adverse inference for not examining any one of the two Mahazar witnesses a...

Shakthi Hill Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Additional Commissioner of Comm ...

Court: Karnataka

H.L. Dattu, J.1. The appellant is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'Act, 1957') and also registered as 'Tourism Industry' with the Director of Tourism, Department of Tourism, Government of Karnataka, as category 'B' unit of Industry located at Halagevaderahally, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.2. The assessee for the assessment years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 had filed annual return of turnover and had declared the sales turnover of Food and Drinks at Rs. 28,91,755/- and Rs. 27,65,150/-respectively on the entire turnover by placing reliance on the Tourism Policy of Karnataka and the package of incentives and concessions offered to the Tourism Industry by the State Government in its order No. ITY.9. TTT.89 dated 30.5.1992 and the certificate issued by the Director of Tourism in No. DTR/HTLS/11/94/05/210 dated 9.4.1997. Since the sale of 'Drinks' not only included sales of beverages like c...

Manjunath T.N. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2006Kant137; ILR2006KAR2482; 2006(2)KarLJ108

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. Petitioner is a resident of Thamrahalli, Periyapatna Taluk and he is a disabled person. According to him, he was under the impression that the Deputy Commissioner would notify to grant authorisation under the provisions of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (PDS) and he was intending to make an application for grant of authorisation. The Deputy Commissioner, Mysore has invited applications to grant authorisation to run a fair price depot at Honnenahalli Village as per Annexure-C, dated 13-8-2004. This notification is called in question by the petitioner contending that the Deputy Commissioner cannot reserve fair price shop of any village either in favour of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe persons.2. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondent.3. According to the learned Government Pleader, the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. It is also the c...

Smt. Jabeen Taj and ors. Vs. Masjid-e-pension Mohalla, A. Wakf Institu ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1146; 2006(2)KarLJ357

K. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. This is Defendant's Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2005 made in O.S. No. 1790/2001 on the file of I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.2. The appellants/Defendants are represented by Sri S.A. Khuddus. The Respondent /Plaintiff is represented by Sri M.N. Balakrishna.3. Heard arguments.4. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Appeal may be stated as under:-The Respondent/Plaintiff filed a Suit for ejectment and recovery of damages against the Defendants. The Defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. In view of the pleading on record, the Trial Judge framed certain issues. The parties went to trial. On the basis of evidence and material placed on record, the Learned Trial Judge answered issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the affirmative in favour of the Plaintiff and answered issue No. 3 as did not survive for consi...

G.V. Revanna and anr. Vs. the Arbitrator (Co-operative Development Off ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ227

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned award dated 11th November, 2003 in Dispute No. 126 of 2003-04 on the file of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tumkur Sub-Division, Tumkur and also the order dated 25th November, 2005 in Appeal No. 974 of 2004 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore vide Annexures-C and E respectively, have presented the instant writ petition.2. The first petitioner is the principal borrower and second petitioner is the surety for the loan availed by the first petitioner from the second respondent-Sacred Heart Credit Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter called 'Society') for a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy-five Thousand Only) for the purpose of improvement of his business. When petitioners committed default in payment of instalments as agreed upon in the agreement executed by petitioners in favour of second respondent-Society, the second respondent-So...

A.R. Shambulinga and anr. Vs. A.C. Lalitha and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1335; 2006(3)KarLJ128

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration of this Court in this writ petition is that, if an application is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, whether the petitioners are required to pay Court fee either under Section 38 of the Karnataka Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 or under Article 11(n) of Schedule II of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.2. 4th respondent was appointed as arbitrator and he passed an award in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 herein. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award passed by the 4th respondent, which application has been treated as Arbitration suit 4/2002 by the Civil Court Bangalore. Though it is an application filed under Section 34 of he Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court treated the same as Arbitration suit, pursuant to High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proce...

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. V. Narayan and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007ACJ2846; ILR2006KAR2171; 2006(2)KarLJ474

ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. One Raghu is the deceased in MVC No. 39 of 2001. The parents are the petitioners. According to the petition averments, the deceased was a cleaner in a passenger jeep who died on account of rash and negligent driving of the jeep.2. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Ors. : (2003)IIILLJ740SC while interpreting the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, 'the Act') has held that there is no obligation for the insurer to cover the risk of a cleaner in a passenger vehicle under the Act policy. The insurer has produced the policy marked at Ex. Rule 1. The insurer has collected additional premium to cover the risk of nine persons in the vehicle under the Personal Accident Benefit Scheme. The said coverage is not a statutory coverage as required under Section 147 of the Act. But it is by way of a special contract the insurer has undertaken liability to pay compensation to an extent of Rs...