Karnataka Court November 2006 Judgments

St. Ann's D.E.D. College rep. by Its Principal Sri Venkatachalapahi an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR419; 2007(2)KarLJ121

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. The petitioners are challenging the endorsements issued by the 3rd respondent-Principal, D.I.E.T. (District Institution of Education Training) refusing to approve the admission of petitioners 2 to 10 herein on the ground that they have not studied SSLC in English Medium nor have they taken English as either the first or the second language as per the eligibility prescribed under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Diploma in Education Course (D.Ed) Rules, 2002 (for short the Rules).2. Petitioners 2 to 10 are students who are studying in the I Year Diploma in Education in the first petitioner -institution. They have been admitted under the management quota for the academic year 2005-2006 (wrongly stated in the petition as 2006-2007). The intake fixed for the first petitioner -institution for admission is 50 seats out of which 25 seats are management quota seats and the remaining 25 seats are to be forwarded by the Government from out of...

Smt Thayaramma W/O Late Sri Kuppaswamy, Vs. Mr Ravindranath L. Ghodke ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(1)KarLJ434; 2007(1)KCCR188; 2007(1)AIRKarR400

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The Petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 1.9.2006 passed on I.A.No. VI in H.R.C.No. 10060/2004 on the file of XV Addl. Small Causes Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, presented the instant HRRP.2. The grievance made out toy the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the petitioners herein have filed I.A.No. VI on 27.7.06 praying that the petition may be dismissed in respect of relief sought under Section 30 & 31(1)(b) of Karnataka Rent Act 1999 by the deceased-landlord. The said application filed toy the petitioners had come up for consideration before the Small Causes Court on 1.9.2006. The small causes Court on the basis of pleadings of both the parties has framed the necessary points for consideration:1. Whether the respondents made out a case to dismiss the petition in respect of Section 30 and 31(1)(b) of Karnataka Kent Act 1999?2. what order?3. The small causes court after considering the material available on file and the stand taken ...

Hindustan Steel and Wood Industries Vs. V.T. and Company

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007(1)KarSN1; 2007(2)KLJ102; 2007(1)KCCR191

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner-defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2006 in S.C. No. 329 of 2003 on the file of the Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mysore, decreeing the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff against the petitioner and directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 13,893/- to the respondent-plaintiff with costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs. 9,560/- from the date of suit till realisation, has presented the instant revision petition.2. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit on the file of the Judge, Court of Small Causes at Mysore in S.C. No. 329 of 2003 seeking decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,893/- with costs current and future interest and other incidental reliefs.3. The Trial Court after registering the case, has issued the summons to the petitioner-defendant. In reply to the same, petitioner herein appeared through the Counsel and filed the written statement denying ...

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parwatewwa and ors ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(1)KCCR187; 2007(1)AIRKarR424; AIR2007NOC387; 2007ACJ-I-505.

V. Jagannathan, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the insurance company will be liable if a person sitting on the plough attached to a tractor sustains injuries. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has answered the said question in the affirmative, giving rise to this appeal by insurance company.2. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. A.N. Krishna Swamy, referring to the undisputed facts of this case, has submitted that it is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased Kenchappa Teli was sitting on the plough which was attached to the tractor when the accident occurred on 19.5.2001 and such being the case, the appellant insurance company could not have been made liable. It is further submitted that first of all, the deceased was not found travelling in the tractor and secondly, only a tractor without trailer being attached to it, cannot be called as a goods vehicle and, therefore, the order of the Commissioner is unsustainable in law.3. The abov...

Amarappa Vs. the Assistant Commissioner and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR191; 2007(1)KLJ671; 2007(1)AIRKarR611

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents.Petitioner is challenging the notice dated 03.11.2006 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Koppal Sub Division, Koppal, notifying the date of meeting of the Grama Panchayat convened for the purpose of considering the no confidence motion. The meeting is fixed on 29.11.2005 at 11 a.m. in the premises of the Grama Panchayat. The impugned notice is issued by the Assistant Commissioner upon a requisition submitted in this regard by the requisite number of members of the Grama Panchayat expressing their no confidence in the petitioner as Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat and requesting the authority to convene the meeting.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the members have executed a bond in Rs. 50 stamp paper stating that they will not support any no confidence motion against the petitioner. Contrary to the said assurance given, the members are moving the no confidence motion wh...

Sri T. Rajagopal S/O Sri Thimmarayappa Vs. the Regional Transport Auth ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2007Kant103; 2007(2)KarLJ137

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. Petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order dated 10.81006 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal whereby the revision petition is filed challenging the resolution passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore South, Bangalore, is dismissed.2. As per the impugned resolution, the 1st respondent has resolved not to grant permission for exhibiting any mobile advertisements on the transport vehicles.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner strongly contends that the action taken by the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction., illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. He submits that the respondent authority has acted in an arbitrary manner by imposing a blanket restriction for exhibiting commercial advertisements on the transport vehicles. He further contends that the transport vehicles owned by the K.S.R.T.C and other private services are still exhibiting such advertisements which amounts to hostile discrimination against the p...

Vasanti W/O Apoorvaraj, Vs. Pharez John Abraham S/O Late John D. Abrah ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2007Kant121; ILR2007KAR2375; 2007(5)KarLJ194; 2007(4)KCCRSN221; 2007(4)AIRKarR182

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Both the appeals arise out of Judgment and Decree in O.S.No. 591/1987. The plaintiffs have filed RFA No. 546/2004. The D-3 and L.Rs of D-4 have filed RFA No. 940/2004.2. One John D. Abraham is the propositus. 1st defendant is the wife. The defendant 2, 3 one Triza Kalyani John (wife of 1st plaintiff) and one late Maccabeaus are the children of the propositus. The suit schedule house is the estate of the propositus. The first defendant died intestate during pendency of the suit.3. After demise of the propositus, his daughter Triza Kalyani John fell in love with the 1st plaintiff, a Hindu., she got converted to Hinduism and her name is changed to A.S. Meenkshi and married 1st plaintiff. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children born out of the wed lock. A.S. Meenakshi @ Tirza Kalyani John died in the year 1986. The husband and children have filed the suit seeking share of A.S. Meenakshi @ Triza Kalyani John.4. The defendants 1 and 2 filed joint written statement conte...

Pkn Caps and Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director Dr. Y. A ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ276; 2007(4)KCCR2448; 2007(6)AIRKarR164

K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of acquittal dated 20.1.2005 passed by XXII Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore, city in C.C. NO. 14649/2003 for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the respondent alleging that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') had committed an offence punishable under Section 136 of the N.I. Act.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows. The accused made a representation that he was the sole and absolute owner of the property in Survey Nos. 39/1A, 39/1-A2 and 40/3 to the extant of 2 Acres of land situated at Talaghattapura village, Uttarahalli Hobli. He entered into an agreement of sale on 6.7.2002 with the appellant-complainant and the appellant- complainant agreed to purchase the same for a total sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- and the complainant paid Rs. 10,20,000/-. Accordingly t...

Borawwa W/O Mallappa Guggari and Kumar Vittal S/O Late Malappa Guggari ...

Court: Karnataka

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Appeal by the disappointed plaintiffs in OS No. 23 of 1992, on the file of Civil Judge (Sr Dn), Gokak, whose suit for compensation by way of damages for the death of their breadwinner - the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff, for a sum of Rs 3.00 lakh with interest etc., came to be dismissed under the impugned judgment and decree dated 16-2-2000 rendered in the said suit.2. The appeal is filed contending that the trial court has non-suited the plaintiffs without applying the relevant law and in a proper manner; that while the material placed on behalf of the plaintiffs has not been properly considered or evaluated by the learned trial judge, the version of the defendants has been accepted without any justification; that the finding recorded in the suit is contrary to the material on record and the evidence placed before the court by the plaintiffs; that the delay in approaching the court for seeking damages as against the de...

Ossoor Estates Ltd. Rep. by Sri V. Baretto, Manager-accounts and Admin ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. M/s. Ossoor Estates Limited is before us raising the following questions of law:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondent is justified in law to revise the well considered order of the Appellate Authority (Joint Commissioner) exercising his powers of revision under Section 55 of the K.A.I.T Act, 1957?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondent is justified in upholding the order of disallowance of commission of Rs. 3,33,389/- paid to the Directors of the petitioner-company?(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondent is justified in disallowing the rebate on donation of Rs. 59,690 ?2. The assessment year involved is 1996-97. The Director's commission of Rs. 3,33,389/- was paid to seven directors of the petitioner-company. It was claimed as a deduction while computing taxable income by the assessing authority. The same was not allowed and appeal was filed. In appeal, assessee g...