Karnataka Court November 2006 Judgments

Suresh Kumar Sharma S/O Lt. D.P. Sharma Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR40; 2007[5]STR254; [2007]7STT249

1. The Appellant is a tourist operator recognised by the Government of India and is operating in South India. The Union Government imposed service tax on the tour operators. Pursuant to that, notice was issued to the Appellant to register under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the purpose of levying service tax. The Appellant and other operators filed writ petitions inter-alia to quash the notice. The learned single Judge by order dated 22-9-2006 dismissed the writ petitions. The Appellant alone has filed this writ appeal challenging the said order on various grounds.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order of the learned single Judge. Prima facie we find that the same does not warrant interference. The learned single Judge has considered all relevant provisions of Finance Act, the contentions urged, decisions relied upon and assigned valid and cogent reasons in support of his conclusions. The law on the point is correctly applied. The applicabl...

Ganesh Enterprises, Rep. by Its Partner H.N. Narasimha Gupta S/O Late ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: III(2007)BC709; 2007(3)KarLJ137; ILR2007(1)Kar275; 2007(2)KCCR1227; 2007(1)AIRKarR446(DB)

K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful complainant challenging the order of acquittal passed by the XVI Addl. C.M.M. Bangalore, dated 4.4.2002 in C.C. No. 34858/99.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant M/s. Ganesh Enterprises represented by its partner H.N. Narasimha Gupta and that the accused had purchased raw silk and twisted yarn on credit basis from the complainant and for repayment of the same she had issued 3 cheques and when they were presented to the bank for encashment, they were returned with an endorsement 'Funds Insufficient'. So, the complainant got issued the demand notice to the accused calling upon her to pay the cheque amount and the same was served on the accused but inspite of that, she failed to pay the same, therefore, the complainant filed a complaint against her for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked E...

Raja @ Rajappa S/O Muniyapa and Muniraja S/O Muniswamy Vs. State by He ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR275

1. These three appellants were charge sheeted for the offence under Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC for having committed murder of an unidentified person. The learned Judge of the Fast Track [Sessions] Court, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, convicted all the 3 accused persons for the offence under Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC in S.C. No. 261/2001 by his Judgment dated 17.07.2003 sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000-00 each, in default to suffer imprisonment for a period of 6 months.2. Accused No.2-Raja @ Rajappa and accused No.3-Muniraja preferred Crl.A. No.1513/2003, whereas accused No. 1-Krishnappa preferred Crl.A. No. 1514/2003 questioning the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No.261/2001 sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000-00 each.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:Accused No. 1-Krishnappa is a resident of Chandapura, Anekal Taluk, and accused No. 2-Raja @ Rajappa is a residen...

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project Vs. Gurapp ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(2)KarLJ88

N.K. Patil, J.1. The appellant-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Almatti, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17th February 2006 passed on I.A. No. 1 in LAC Appeal No. 24/2004 on the file of the IV Addl. District Judge, Bijapur, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and award dated 4th January 2003 passed in LAC No. 460/1997 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Bijapur, has presented the instant Miscellaneous Second Appeal.2. Land bearing R.S. No. 131 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas, situated at Hunashyal village, Basavana Bagewadi Taluk, belonging to the respondents herein, along with other several lands have been notified and acquired by the State through the appellant herein for the purpose of construction of link road connecting all centers, vide preliminary Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, on 22.9.1983 and published in the Karnataka Gazette on the same date. The Special Land Acquisition ...

Sri Eswarasa Vs. the Chairman and the Disciplinary Authority

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR3303; 2008(1)KarLJ719; ILR2007(3)Kar3303; 2007(5)AIRKarR515(DB)

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 22160/2004 which was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge. The challenge in this Writ Petition was against Annexure-'L' order dated 17.10.2002 and Annexure-'N' order dated 24.6.2003. As per Annexure-'L' order dated 17.10.2002, issued by the respondent Chairman and Disciplinary Authority, Bangalore water Supply and Sewerage Board, a penalty of withholding five increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the appellant as per the provisions contained in Rule 8(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 195,7. As per Annexure-'N' Endorsement Dated 24.6.2003, the appellant was informed that the Appeal filed by him against Annexurer-'L' order was examined and rejected by the Appellate Authority, namely Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board. After considering the rival contentions of the petitioner and the respondent, the Learned Single Judge upheld Annexure-'L' and 'N' a...

Karnataka Maratha Welfare Association and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. As common questions of fact and law are involved in both the writ petitions, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common order.Petitioners in W.P. No. 14420 of 2006 are challenging the Memorandums dated 16-3-2006 and 30-9-2006 issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the request made by the 1st petitioner-Institution seeking approval of the admissions of petitioners 2 to 4 for D.Ed. Course.Petitioner in W.P. No. 15621 of 2006 is challenging the list vide Annexure-D, whereby the approval of her admission is rejected stating that she has not studied two elective subjects in the qualifying examination.2. In W.P. No. 14420 of 2006, the 1st petitioner is an Institution imparting education in Diploma in Education. It has an intake capacity of 50, out of which 25 seats are earmarked for management quota and the remaining 25 for the Government quota. Admissions are made in respect of 25 seats for the management quota by the Management. As regards the Gov...

Maheshwari Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Prop. J. Nagchand Vs. L ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ96; 2007(2)KCCR1199.

K. Ramanna, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant complainant challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the XX Addl. CMM and XXII Addl. Small Cause Judge, Bangalore City in CC No. 2968/2002 whereby the said court dismissed the complaint filed against the respondent accused for an offence punishable Under Section 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act consequently, acquitted the respondent. Therefore, assailing the same the appellant M/s Maheswari Construction represented by its proprietor has come up with this appeal mainly on the ground that the trial court is improperly appreciated the evidence placed on record by the appellant in the case both oral and documentary evidence. The appellant being a proprietary business establishment engaged in the business of construction activity and the 3 cheques issued by the respondent No. 2 on behalf of the first respondent for the legally recoverable debt towards the construction work carried out by the appellant, but the trial court...

National Mineral Development Corporation Limited a Company Incorporate ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ235; 2007(1)KCCRSN16; 2007(1)AIRKarR402

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are challenging the notifications dated 17.2.2003 and 15.3.2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka, complaining that their preferential rights under Rule 11(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 are affected by those notifications. Therefore, all these petitions are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. In WP.No. 18445/2003 the petitioner is National Mineral Development corporation Limited a Government of India Enterprises. On 11/12.12.1968 they made an application for mining lease over an area of 4025 hectares of land situated in Ramadurga, Bellary District, Karnataka. No orders were passed within the stipulated period on the said application. It is deemed to have been rejected. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a revision before the revisional authority-Central Government and the revision was allowed directing the State Government to consider the application af...

Nalini Kumari, Major Vs. K.S. Bopaiah, Major

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(1)KarLJ342

1. These appeals are disposed of by a common order, since the parties in these appeals are common.2. These first appeals are filed against the common judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Virajpet, in M.C.No. 5/1996, MC.No. 17/1996 and G.&.WC.No. 2/1998 dated 23.2.2000.3. M.C.No. 5/1996 is filed by the husband against his wife for a judgment and decree of divorce on the ground of fraud and cruelty.4. MC.No. 17/1996 is filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights.5. G & WC No. 2/1998 is filed by the wife for the custody of the minor daughter born out of the wedlock.6. The petitioner in MC.No. 5/1996 was married to respondent at Gonikoppal on 8.3.1992 according to rites and customs prevailing in the community. After the marriage, the parties had set up their matrimonial home at Nangala Village, Virajpet Taluk. A baby girl was born to the couple out of the wedlock on 29.4.1993. The petitioner has asserted in the petition, that since the inception of the mar...

P. Krishnappa S/O Puttaiah (Since Deceased by His Lrs. Smt. Huchamma W ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ474; 2007(1)AIRKarR640; AIR2007NOC428

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Appeal by the disappointed plaintiffs in OS No. 3957 of 1984, on the file of City Civil Judge Bangalore, a suit that had been filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property, which came to be dismissed in terms of the judgment and decree 20-2-2001 rendered in the said suit.2. The facts leading to filing of the suit and this appeal as pleaded by the plaintiff, though not necessarily consistent or cogent, are that: The original plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule properties in respect of which a declaration is sought for viz., property bearing No. U-78, which is formed part of site No. 92 of Jabbar Block, Palace Guttahalli, Banglore-3, which is a site allotted to the plaintiff in the year 1967 by the then City Improvement Trust Board [CITB] on lease-cum-sale basis; that this site measures east to west 20 feet and north to south 25 feet; that initially a lease-cum-sale agreement was executed in favour of...