Karnataka Court November 2006 Judgments

B. Mundappa Rai and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(6)KarLJ313; 2007(1)KCCR744

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 29-1-2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner who has kept in abeyance the order dated 15-12-2004 wherein, the Deputy Commissioner had ordered that an entry shall be made regarding the existence of the new 25 feet road.2. It is the contention of the petitioner that an application was made and after enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order to enter into column (11) of Sy. Nos. 51/1A1 and 81/1A1A of Bannur Village about the existence of new 25 feet road. However, without issuing notice to the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner has passed' an order keeping the said order dated 15-12-2004 in abeyance and directing the Assistant Commissioner to submit a report about the persons who are responsible for making false report.3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4.4. It is clear from the perusal of...

Doddahanumappa and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(6)KarLJ598; ILR2007(2)Kar1313; 2007(1)KCCR769

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore allowing the revision petition and setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, Bangalore.2. It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners are the owners of the land comprised in Sy. No. 18/2 measuring 3 acres 12 guntas of Ex. KG. Dyavarahali and the said land has been granted to Motappa by Inam Abolition Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. Respondents 4 to 7 practiced fraud and filed a joint compromise memo and obtained decree in O.S. No. 225 of 1991 from the Munsiff and Magistrate Court of Devanahalli and obtained the khata fraudulently vide Mutation Entry No. 21/95-96, dated 7-12-1995 and a criminal complaint has been filed against respondents 4 to 7. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and set asid...

Wasava Tyres a Partnership Firm Rep. by Its Partner P. Sadanand Vs. th ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2007]139CompCas446(Kar); [2008]86SCL171(Kar)

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. All these Appeals project common question of law and facts, hence heard together for common disposal.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the appellant-tenants for possession and seek damages/mesne profits for the period after termination of the tenancy. The plaintiff before filing suit terminated the tenancy by issuing notice Under Section 106 of T.P. Act.3. The trial court allowed the suit granted decree directing the tenants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the tenanted premises. The court also directed payment of damages at the rate varying between Rs. 5/- to Rs. 8/- per square feet payable by each of the tenant for use and occupation of the premises from the date of termination of tenancy. The trial court further granted interest in the rate of 12% on the damages if paid within the certain time and in default to pay enhanced interest at 18%.4. The material facts disclose that the plaintiff/tenant is a private limited company. The provi...

Rajashree Cement, a Unit of Grasim Industries Limited, Represented by ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KCCRSN310; 2007(2)AIRKarR141; 2007(2)AIRKarR624; AIR2007NOC940&1073; 2007-08(5)VATToday76(DB)

ORDERN. Ananda, J.1. Rajashree Cement is before us in this appeal. Petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of cement in Gulbarga District. Assessment for the year 1998-99 came to be concluded in terms of as order dtd 6-1-2001. It was subsequently revised in terms of a subsequent order dtd 3-3-2001. In the subsequent order the assessing authority rejected the claim of exemption claimed by the petitioner with regard to the purchase of polypropelene bags (PP Bags) as classifiable under Entry 70 based on the earlier orders passed by two co-ordinate benches of the tribunal and levied tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act (for short 'The Entry Tax Act') at the rate of 2% stating that the goods caused entry into the local area by the petitioner are classifiable under Entry 66 of the I Schedule, as packing materials. Aggrieved by the said order, appeals were filed before the appellate authority. The appellate authority confirmed the findings of the asse...

The State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary Revenue Department, Vs. Holey ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR259; 2007(3)KarLJ433; 2007(2)KCCR902; 2007(3)AIRKarR265(DB)

1. The Appellants in W.A. No. 3813/2005 and Petitioner in W.P. No. 21221/2005 claim that they are unauthorisedly cultivating land in Sy. No. 32 of Chikkashakuna Village, Somba Taluk in Shimoga District They filed applications in Form No. 50 under Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964, r/w Rule 108-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules 1966, (hereinafter called as 'KLR Act' and Rules' in short) seeking regularisation of their unauthorized occupation of the land, but the Tahsildar issued Notices dated 21-6-2004 calling upon them not to cultivate the land until their applications for regularisation are disposed of. Being aggrieved by the same, they have filed the writ petitions seeking to quash the notices and for a Writ of Mandamus to the authorities to regularise their unauthorised cultivation of the land in question. The writ petition of Appellants in W.A. No. 3813/2005 was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 22-9-2005. The learned single Judge held that direction can...

The Chief Secretary, Posts and Telegraphs Telecommuniations, Governmen ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(1)KarLJ459; 2007(1)KCCR90; 2007(1)AIRKarR346; AIR2007NOC312

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. IA-III for impleading is filed by a person claiming as legal heirs of one A B V Gowda and which has been directed to be listed along with the appeals at the time of final hearing, is rejected as unnecessary.2. These two appeals are by the defendants in OS 10886 of 1995 and 10887 of 1995, on the file of XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, directed against the common judgment and decrees in the two suits, being aggrieved by the decrees for possession and damages in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule properties in the said suits.3. The common appellants-defendants in these appeals are the Chief Secretary Posts & Telegraphs, Telecommunications, Government of India, New Delhi and the Divisional Engineer, Bangalore Telephones, Bangalore.4. The suits for recovery of possession, for arrears of rent and future damages was on the premise that the plaintiff had determined the tenancy by notices dated 6-6-1995 [ExP3 and 4] issued under S...

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, City Branch, Represented by th ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007ACJ1497

N. Kumar, J.1. These appeals are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common order since, they are preferred against a common judgment, but two different awards, as common questions of law do arise for consideration in these appeals and cross objection.2. One Sri Ramachandra was the claimant in MVC No. 1140/ 1990, Sri Thukarama Adappa is the claimant in MVC No. 1442/ 1990. Both were injured in a motor vehicle accident and they preferred two independent claim petitions and both the claim petitions were disposed of by a common judgment on 6.12.2000 after holding a common trial. The insurance company on whom the liability to pay the award amount is foisted has preferred these appeals challenging the liability to pay the entire amount and contend their liability is limited to the extent mentioned in the Contract of Insurance. They are not challenging the quantum of compensation. Ramachandra, the claimant in MVC No. 1140/1990 has preferred Cross Objection No. 74/2001 ...

Sree Durga Distributors Represented by Its Proprietor Sri. K. Mohan Vs ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2007]6STT218; (2007)5VST347(Karn); 2007(1)AIRKarR306; AIR2007NOC267(DB)

1. M/s. Sree Durga Distributors is before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 31.5.2006 passed by the authority for Clarification and Advance ruling Under Section 60 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act of 2003 (for short 'the KVAT Act'). The appellant-dealer is engaged in the activity of trading in Animal Feed such as 'Dog Peed' sold under the brand names 'Pedigree' and 'Cat Feed' sold under the brand name 'Whiskas'. The animal feed sold by the appellant are purchased from the registered dealers situated within the State of Karnataka and it would be second sale in the State of Karnataka. The goods mold by the appellant are exclusively used as dally food to cats and dogs. The appellant did not collect any tax under the provisions of the Act, on the sales of 'Dog Feed' and 'Cat Feed' effected by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that the said goods fell under Entry No. 8 of the First Schedule appended to the Act, for the periods commencing from 1.4.2005 and up to 6.6.2...

K. Nissar Ahmed and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The petitioners in this public interest litigation claim to be the worshippers of Shree Guru Dattathreya Bababudan Swamy Dargah (7th respondent in this writ petition) situated in Inam Dattathreya Peetha Village, Attigundi, Chickmagalur. According to them, it is the shrine of the Sufi Saint Dada Hayat Mir Kalandar. Both Hindus and Muslims Worship at the Dargah of the Sufi Saint. There is a cave containing what the Mohammedans expert to be the tomb of Bababudan and the Hindus assert to be the throne of Dattathreya. The cave is a venerated place of pilgrimage for both the Mohammedans and Hindus. According to the petitioners, the rituals or functions at Shree Guru Dattathreya Bababudan Swamy Dargah are to be conducted by Hindus and Muslims only in accordance with Annexure-D, order dated 25-2-1989 passed by the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments in Karnataka. It is alleged that some of the Hindu organisations have announced to conduct rituals like Dat...

Vijaya Bank, S.D. Road Branch, Rep. by Its Chief Manager, K.M. Shekar ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2007]137CompCas428(Kar); ILR2006KAR4663; 2007(1)KarLJ309; [2007]76SCL235(Kar)

ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J.1. The point of law that arises in this petition filed Under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is whether the revisional court is required to issue a notice to the respondents/ borrowers and any other person claiming right over a secured interest in the revision petition filed by a secured creditor challenging the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate declining to proceed Under Section 14(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to in this order as the Act, for the sake of convenience).2. The petitioner is a bank. For taking possession of the secured interest (i.e. a property) of the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner bank filed an application Under Section 14 of the Act before the VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore. Subsequent purchasers of the secured property i.e. respondents 6 and 7 impleaded themselves in that petition and contended that the Bank cannot take possession of the prope...