Karnataka Court December 2006 Judgments

The Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Represented by Its General Manage ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR226; 2007(2)KLJ164; 2007(1)KCCR469; 2007(2)AIRKarR1; AIR2007NOC936(DB)

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. Writ appeal No. 1730/2006 filed by the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited and writ appeal No. 1852/2006 filed by M/s. South India Corporation Limited arise from the order, dated 6th September, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10474/2006 (GM-TEN.)2. Although the appeals are listed for preliminary hearing, we took them up for final disposal with the consent: of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the appellant-KPCL') floated a tender in April 2006 for the appointment of coal transportation agency for the supply of raw coal from SCCL Collieries (Loading Points) to Raichur Thermal Power Station by all rail route. Three parties, namely, M/s. SICAL Logistics Limited, formerly South India Corporation (Agencies) Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the second respondent-M/s. SICAL'), M/s. South India Corporation Limited ...

Employees State Insurance Corporation Rep. by Its Assistant Director V ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2007(114)FLR378]

V. Jagannathan, J.1. In this appeal the question that arises for consideration is, whether an establishment engaged in the business of sales and service of electrical appliance like mixers, fans, air conditioners etc., comes within the definition of manufacturing process so as to attract the applicability of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act of 1948').2. The facts which have led to this appeal briefly stated are to the effect that the appellant-ESI Corporation demanded contribution from the respondent-establishment for the period from 1.4.1999 to 30.9.1999 and from 1.10.1999 to 31.3.2000 in a sum of Rs. 30,674/- and the said order of the corporation came to be assailed before the ESI Court under an application filed under Section 75 of the Act of 1948 by the respondent and based on the material placed by both sides, the ESI court came to the conclusion that the respondent-establishment was neither engaged in the manufacture of any of the home appliances with which...

Rathnakar Rao Sindhe Vs. Smt. Leela Ashwath

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007(1)Kar587; 2007(2)KLJ285; 2007(1)KCCR746; 2007(2)AIRKarR143; AIR2007NOC941

H.G. Ramesh, J.1. This first appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2006 passed by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Mysore decreeing the suit in O.S.No. 361/1997 filed by the respondent/plaintiff for partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit properties. The plaintiff is the sister of the appellant herein.2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment.3. The suit properties are the self acquired properties of the father of the plaintiff and the defendant and the father had died intestate. The case of the appellant that her sister (plaintiff) had received more money than her share was not proved by any satisfactory evidence.4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short) was in force as on the date of filing of the suit and hence, the Trial Court has erred in law in decreei...

Umakanth Mallikarjunaswamy and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007(1)Kar573; 2007(2)KarLJ172; 2007(2)KCCR1239; 2007(2)AIRKarR92

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all these writ petitions, Sri B.N. Prasad, learned HCGP., appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State and perused the material on record.2. The Notification dated 14-6-2006 bearing No. ED 122 PBS issued under the provisions of Section 58(1A), (v), 58(2), 60, 61(2)(b) r/w. Section 316(1) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1993) hereinafter referred to as 'P.R. Act' and the subsequent Circular dated 30.9.2006 bearing No. ED 179 PBS 2006, issued by the State of Karnataka are questioned in these writ petitions. The petitioners are either existing 'School Development Monitoring Committees' or it's members. Since all these writ petitions are interconnected and as the common questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common order.3. The brief facts of the case leading to these writ petitions are a...

Employees State Insurance Corporation Rep. by Its Deputy Director Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR1003; 2008(6)KLJ266; 2008(1)AIRKarR544; 2008CriLjNOC323; 2008LabIC(NOC)344(Kar)

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. All these four criminal appeals are filed by the Deputy Director of E.S.I. Corporation, Bangalore, against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, on 21.1.2002 in C.C. Nos. 582/98, 570/98, 569/98 and 581/98 respectively, whereby the Court below acquitted the respondents in all the aforesaid four cases for an offence punishable under Section 85(1)(a) of the E.S.I. Act.2. Since the appellants and the respondents in all these four appeals are one and same even though allegations made in the complaint by the appellant/complainant against the respondents 1 and 2 is for a different purpose and so also the question of fact and law involved in these cases are same, therefore, in order to avoid repetition of facts and law, they were taken up together, heard and being disposed of by this common judgment3. The case of the appellant/E.S.I. Corporation is that the respondent/Accused No. 2 M/s.Cosmos L...

Canara Precision Instruments by Prop. Mrs. Lalitha M. Achar, Vs. Union ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2007Kant100; III(2007)BC203; [2007]137CompCas306(Kar); ILR2007KAR410

H.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment Rules provided far imposing of fees and also the Rule made exercising power under Section 36 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank & Financial Institutions Act 1993. The petitioners restrict their prayer only to declare that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Amendment Rules 2003 dated 21.1.2003 in so far as levy of few ranging from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- on appeals to be filed against the order of the Recovery Officer as provided in Item 8(d) of the amended Rules - annexure F as ultra vires being violative of the purport and object of the Act.2. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order of the Recovery Officer in brining the property into auction on the basis of the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, assailed the said order before the 2nd respondent Tribunal as is permitted under law contending that the proceedings held based on the Recovery Certificate issued is in ...

B.M.T.C. Represented by Its Managing Director Vs. Smt. T.R. Vijaya W/O ...

Court: Karnataka

K. Ramanna, J.1. These two appeals are filed against the Judgment and Award dated 7/11/2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-2) in M.V.C. No. 2622/2000, whereby' the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,35,525/- with interest at 7% p.a. on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant-claiment.2. The B.M.T.C. has filed appeal No. 2363/2004 challenging the Judgment and Award on the ground that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.3. whereas the appellant in M.F.A. No. 2309/04 being the victim, of road transport accident came up with M.F.A. No. 2309/04 on the ground that the Tribunal has not properly quantified the compensation and meager compensation has been awarded. Hence this appeal.4. Since both the appeals arise out of one and the same Judgment and Award passed in M.V.C. No. 2622/2000, the parties in both the appeals are one and the same, therefore, they are being taken up together fox the sake of convenience and in order to avoid ...

H.K. Nagesh S/O Krishnegonda Vs. the Deputy Director of Land Records S ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR528

1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Government Advocate for 1^st and 2^nd respondents and Mr. S.V. Prakash, for 3^rd respondent.2. According to the petitioner, he has purchased 3 acres 121/2 guntas in Sy. No. 3 of Ramapura village, Nidige Hobli, Shimoga Taluk from one Sannegowda under registered sale deed dated 23^rd January 1981. Thereafter, he filed an application before the 2^nd respondent to survey the land purchased by him end fix the boundaries. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated. After measuring the property by issuing notice to all the neighbors, the boundaries were fixed by the Asst, Director of Land Records ('ADLR' for short) . Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent filed a revision Under Section. 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act ('Act' for short) before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Shimoga, who has allowed the revision, even though the same was barred by limitation and get aside the order passed by the ADLR in fixing the boundaries of the land of the pe...

The Karnataka State Handicrafts Development Corporation Vs. the Secret ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR499; 2007(2)KCCR913; 2007(1)AIRKarR525(DB)

1. The facts leading to this appeal are that the respondent-Engineering and General Workers Union (for short 'the Union') espousing the cause of artisans and artiste, claiming that the said persons are the workmen of the appellant i.e., The Karnataka Handicrafts Development Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') had raised certain disputes as far back as in the year 1976 which related to the demand regarding payment of bonus from the years 1976-77 onwards, payment of lay off compensation to the 15 employees named therein and also with regard to the refusal of employment to the workmen named therein. Since the appellant did not concede to the said demands, the respondent raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer which resulted in the failure report being sent to the Government. Therefore, the Government by its order dated 15/16th January 1981 referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court, Bangalore. Before the Labour Court, the parties filed their claim and counter statem...

The Commissioner of Income-tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-t ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Kar)620; [2007]293ITR146(KAR); [2007]293ITR146(Karn)

1. Assessee is a company having its registered office at Bangalore. It filed its annual TDS returns for the assessment year 1997-98. This return came to be scrutinized. It was found that TDS was not deducted in respect of shares issued to the assessees employees. A show cause notice dated 8.6.1999 was issued proposing to treat the assessee as a defaulter for failing to deduct tax at source Under Section 201(1) of the Act. The assessee objected to this notice by furnishing its reply in terms of a letter dated 2.8.1999 and 28.9.1999. The assessing officer passed an order on 7.10.1999. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner of appeals. He also rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. A second appeal was filed and the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Revenue is therefore before us. The following two questions of law are framed:1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee company was not liable to deduct TDS Under...