Karnataka Court December 2006 Judgments

Shri J. Ramaraj S/O Sri Jyothi Raj Vs. Iliyaz Khan S/O Janab Mohammed ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR4672

ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. These three revisions have been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Prl. Sessions judge, Kolar in Crl.A.Nos. 99/03, 98/03 and 100/03 wherein the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeals while confirming the order of the learned Magistrate in convicting and sentencing the accused/petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. As it transpires from the records, complaint was filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner herein stating that the complainant/respondent is a commission agent dealing in supply of potatoes on commission basis wherein the accused/petitioner used to place orders for supply of potatoes, as per the request and requirement, the complainant used to supply potatoes to the accused/petitioner as and when required. Further, during the month of July and August'01 the accused/p...

Smt. M.C. Nagalakshmi and ors. Vs. Sri. M.A. Farook and Sri. M.A. Yaku ...

Court: Karnataka

Subhash B. Adi, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendants questioning the judgment and decree dated 19th July 2000 in O.S. No. 6041/1992 on the file of the XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. 2. Respondents are the plaintiffs. Suit is one for enforcement of an agreement of sale in respect, of residential building consisting of ground, first and second floor, bearing No. 18/1 (old) New No. 11, II Main Road, Vasantha Nagar, Bangalore-560 052. 3. Plaintiffs' case is that, they entered into an agreement of sale, with the defendants on 13.9.1989 interalia to purchase the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 6,66,250/- and on 13.9.1989, the plaintiffs paid an advance of Rs. 50,000/-. As a part performance of the contract., defendants delivered vacant possession of eastern portion of second floor of the schedule property to the plaintiffs. Further, sum of Rs. 4 lakhs was to be paid as an additional advance subject to the condition stipulated under the agreement,...

Rajashree Cement, a Unit of Grasim Industries Limited, by Its Deputy G ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ400

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners are persons on whom liability is created for payment of what is known as electricity tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Ordinance No. 8 of 2003, which amended Section 3 of the Karnataka Electricity (Taxation on Consumption) Act, 1959 [for short 'the Act'] and levied a tax burden on persons like the petitioners in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 as amended by the Ordinance.2. Petitioners who were essentially persons who either generate themselves such electricity which is sought to be taxed under the amended provisions or who got it from any other non-licensee suppliers tree of cost and on whom is created this liability for payment of tax, are complaining that the levy itself is bad as the levy on electricity generated amounts to levy on generation at the generating point and not a levy on consumption; that it is beyond the competence of the state government to have issued an ordinance of this ...

Sri C. Shiva S/O Chikka Chowdappa Vs. the State of Karnataka, Represen ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(3)KarLJ148

ORDER1. Our judicial conscious was shocked to learn the factum of 400 missing persons being reported every month in the limits of Bangalore City alone. Hence we thought of taking this matter seriously to arrest this trend of increasing missing cases in the case on hand.Bangalore city is growing leaps and bounds on account of industrialization and in particular attaining a significant place in IT sector in India. Commercialization has its own it effect on the social fabric of a city. Greediness and fast money has resulted in several illegal activities in the city causing a threat to the law and order situation. Abduction, missing and other social crimes have increased due to the greediness of a man. This case would be an eye opener for the authorities to speed up their investigation in the larger interest of safety of a man in a busy city like Bangalore. Technology has shown its impact on every activity of a man. Technological development has yielded good results in several sectors. Inv...

NitIn Punja S/O Dr. N.V. Punja Vs. Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR597; 2007(2)KCCR873; 2007(3)AIRKarR97

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner's father purchased certain immovable properties under two registered sale deeds dated 25/07/1975 and 26/07/1975, Annexures 'A' & 'B' respectively which were assigned Municipal No. 4-5-94/2. On the death of the petitioner's father on 30th August 1994, the petitioner's application to substitute his name as the khatedar of the said properties, remained unresponded and on account of interference by respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6340/1999 and 6758/1999 for mandamus which were disposed of by order dated 17.6.99 Annexure 'E' directing the Chief Officer Municipality to dispose of the application of the petitioner for transfer of khata. The Chief officer, after enquiry, by order dated 1.10.99 Annexure 'F', substituted the name of the petitioner in its khata register. The 4th and 5th respondents aggrieved by the said order preferred Appeal No. 60/99-2000 to the first respondent, who by order dated 25/08/2005 Annexure 'A' can...

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment) Special Range-6 Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Kar)62; [2007]293ITR451(KAR); [2007]293ITR451(Karn)

1. All these appeals are disposed of by this common order.ITA 63/2000 is filed by the revenue. Assessing authority passed an assessment order for the assessment year 1996-97 and in so concluding the assessment, the assessing authority, by applying the provisions of Section 40A(2) of the Act, held that the commission paid by the respondent - assessee company to its sister concern is unreasonable and therefore, the provisions of Section 40A(2) of the Act were attracted. He restricted the payment of commission to 6%. While passing the assessment order, the assessing authority noticed that the commission of 10% on the sales of respondent -assessee company has been paid to the sister concern namely M/S Accumulator Fabrics. It was noticed that in earlier years the payment of commission made by the assessee - company to its sister or concern has been held to be highly excessive and unreasonable when compared to the meager services rendered by the said sister concern. Taking into consideration...

B.R. Vasudevamurthy S/O. H.D. Ramaswamy and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Hon

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007(1)KAR1034; 2007(2)KCCRSN97; 2007(3)AIRKarR71(DB)

ORDER1. These writ petitions are listed before the Division Bench on a Reference order dated 05/11/2004 made by the learned Single Judge, the same were heard together for a considerable period on merits and proceed to pass the following order.2. All the impleading applications, which are pending, are allowed and the applicants are permitted to come on record, as they are proper and necessary parties to these proceedings. The learned Counsel appearing for them are directed to amend the cause title of the Writ Petition forthwith.3. The impugned orders questioned in these petitions are one and the same. The parties are same and the facts, grounds pleaded and urged are similar and the prayers are also same. Therefore, all these writ petitions were heard together and following common order is passed.4. The petitioner in the first Writ Petition is Teachers Colony Residents Association (hereinafter in short called as 'Association' in short). The other petitioners are allottees and subsequent ...

P. Devadas S/O B.P. Nayak Vs. the General Manager (Administration and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(2)KarLJ99; ILR2007(1)KarSN16; 2007(2)AIRKarR144

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner questioning the correctness of the Official Memorandum dated 22nd July 2005 vide Annexure G issued by second respondent. has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a mandamus, directing the respondents to forbear from recovery of any amount in pursuance to Annexure G and direct the respondents to pay all the pensionary and other benefits due to the petitioner on his retirement including the interest at the rate of 12% on the belated payment.2. The brief facts of the case are that, petitioner who was working as 'Store Keeper' at Yelahanka (Administration and H.R.D.) was transferred and posted to Magadi MUSS and was handed over the charge of store articles during May 2000. A notice came to be issued to petitioner on 4th September 2002, calling upon the petitioner to finalise the store articles. The petitioner retired from service as 'Junior Engineer (Electrical) (Section Officer) after attaining the age of superannuation o...

Chindan A. Rajan S/O V. Chindan Vs. Union of India (Uoi), by Secy Mini ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2007(114)FLR695]; 2007(3)KarLJ233; (2007)IIILLJ42Kant

ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought for to declare Section 8(B)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' in short), in so for as the same confers unguided and arbitrary power to the Executives, other than a court of law, to arrest an employer and to detain him in a prison as void and unconstitutional being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; and also sought to declare the act of the fourth respondent in arresting and detaining the petitioner in prison by its order dated 18.10.2002 as unconstitutional and without the authority law. However, the third prayer has become infructuous since this Court has already ordered to release the petitioner. Further the petitioner has prayed to direct the 4th respondent to pay adequate and appropriate compensation to the petitioner and for such other reliefs.2. According to the petitioner, he is the Managing Director of M/s. Storacks Ltd., ...

Eureka Forbes Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act, 19 ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ122; LC2007(1)241; 2007(35)PTC556(Karn)

V. Jagannathan, J.1. All these appeals arise out of one and the same order passed by the IV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, and, hence, common judgment.2. The appellant, M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd., a public limited company, is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 15302/2006 and the said suit was filed praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent, M/s Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. the defendant, from publishing, placing of advertisement or in any manner circulating or distributing any material defaming or maligning the plaintiff's product 'Aquaguard' or 'UV Purifier' or from issuing disparaging statements about the said Aquaguard or UV Purifier, and also prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the respondent-defendant to withdraw the advertisement, pamphlets or such other material containing the disparaging and false information relating to U.V. Purifier and also for a direction to the defendant to public in the newspapers and media a st...