Karnataka Court February 2006 Judgments

Sri. Rajaram Khandige S/O Late Dr. K.K. Bhat Vs. State of Karnataka, R ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: IV(2006)BC399; ILR2006KAR1761; 2006(3)KarLJ511

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to quash the proceedings in CR. No. 310/2005 pending on the court of JMFC, Davanagere.2. According to the petitioner, he filed an application under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act seeking to relieve him from the personal criminal liability with respect to the liability of Karnataka Financial Service Limited (in liquidation). It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a complaint has been filed before the Extension Police station, Davanagere in Crime No. 310/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. He submits that the proceedings against him would be abuse of process of law. 3. It is seen as per Section 633(2) of the Company's Act, the court can grant relief in any proceedings for negligence, default, breach of duty and misfeasance or breach of trust against an officer of the Company, if it ...

Bharat Electronics Ltd. and the Director (Bc), Bharat Electronics Ltd. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR2823; 2007(4)KCCRSN261; 2006(6)AIRKarR278(DB)

Cyriac Joseph C.J.1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 15th February 2005 in Writ Petition No. 24228/2002 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The appellants are the respondents in the Writ Petition.2. The respondent herein (writ petitioner) was appointed as a Draughtsman-C in the Bharat Electronics Limited, Jalahalli (first appellant) and he joined duty on 16.7.1993. The said appointment was given to him giving the benefit of reservation as a member of a Scheduled Tribe. However, as per Annexure 'A' order dated 30.5.2002, he was dismissed from service of the first appellant with immediate effect. The dismissal was on the ground that he was not a member of any Scheduled Tribe and that he obtained the employment by deliberately making false statement in his employment application form and attestation form to the effect that he belongs to Kadukuruba community. According to the appellants, the respondent belongs to Kuruba community which is admittedly not a Sc...

A.G. Bheemraju S/O Late Gangaiah, Vs. State of Karnataka Represented b ...

Court: Karnataka

Cyriac Joseph C.J.1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the Judgment dt. 20.1.2006 in Writ Petition No. 25372/2005, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellants are the petitioners in the Writ Petition.2. The challenge in the Writ Petition was against Annexure-A circular dt. 25.8.2005 issued by the Government of Karnataka. As per Annexure-A circular, deputation of persons other than Government servants to technical posts in the A.P.M.C is prohibited. The said circular was issued by the Government in the light of the Judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 9639/2005 wherein it was observed by the High Court that in view of Section 58 of the Karnataka APM (Regulation) Act, 1966 any deputation made to A.P.M.C from non-Government source is bad in law.3. Admittedly, the first and the third petitioners are the employees of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. The second petitioner is an employee of the Karnataka State Small Industries D...

Y. Vishnu Vs. S. Venkatesh

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: IV(2006)BC575; [2006]134CompCas314(Kar); 2006CriLJ1853; ILR2006KAR1377; 2006(2)KarLJ389

ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J. 1. This revision petition preferred by the complainant in C.C.No. 29290/99 involves a question of law i.e., where fine has been imposed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act and compensation has also been awarded in favour of the complainant, whether recovered amount has to be first applied for crediting the fine to the Govt., or for payment of compensation to the complainant.2. The accused in that case (respondent before this Court) was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. It was further directed that out of the said fine amount, an amount of Rs. 55,000/- be paid to the complainant as compensation. The conviction and sentence were confirmed in the appeal in Crl. A.No. 164/01 and later by the High Court in order dated 10.6.04 passed in Crl.R.P No. 293/04. However, the accused was granted si...

Smt. Pillamma Vs. C. Puttanna

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2006Kant194; ILR2006KAR1605; 2006(2)KarLJ382

B.S. Patil, J.1. This miscellaneous first appeal is directed against the order dated 21-2-2004 passed in O.S. No. 859 of 2003 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore Rural District recording the compromise entered into between the parties. The appellant has also challenged the decree passed by the Court below on 5-3-2004 and has further sought for dismissal of the suit O.S. No, 859 of 2003 filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein.2. At the time of hearing of the appeal, learned Counsel for the respondent (plaintiff before the Court below) has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this miscellaneous first appeal. In this regard, he places reliance on Order 23, Rule 3, Order 43, Rule 1-A, Sections 96(3) and 104 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. He has also placed reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of:(i) Banwari Lal v. Smt. Chando Devi (through L.R.) and Anr. : AIR1993SC1139 (hereinafter referred to as 'Banwari...

Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. Vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR202; [2006]284ITR582(KAR); [2006]284ITR582(Karn)

N. Kumar, J.1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA No. 868/Bang/2000 dt. 3rd Nov., 2004 setting aside the orders passed by the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority holding that the income earned by the respondent to the tune of Rs. 4,66,75,814 cannot be treated as income liable to tax under the provisions of the IT Act (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as the respondent is acting as a nodal agency for implementing certain Central and State Government projects.2. Few facts leading to this appeal, are as under:The respondent M/s Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Financial Corporation (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a fully Karnataka State Government owned company. The assessee was appointed as a nodal agency for the implementation of the mega-city scheme worked out by the Planning Commission of Ministry of Urban and Employment for development of ...

H.K. Basavaraju and ors. Vs. the Tahsildar and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ324

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioners 1 to 9 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to issue writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to issue Saguvali Chit in respect of the land granted in their favour at Annexures-B to H and also to direct respondent 5 to hand over the possession of the land in Sy. Nos. 41 and 42 of Nidanur Village, making way to issue Saguvali Chit in favour of petitioners 1 to 9.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners 1 to 9 are the agriculturists and their livelihood is entirely depending on the income derived from their lands. Since the lands of the petitioners 1 to 9 stood merged in Hemavathi Reservoir Project, respondent 4 taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners and others lost their valuable lands consequent upon the construction of the Hemavathi Reservoir Project directing to reduce the extent of gomala land for the purpose of livelihood for the persons who ...

Rajkumar and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appellants-accused 1 and 2 are convicted for committing offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Accused 3-brother of accused 1 is acquitted.2. The case of the prosecution discloses that the deceased Padmashri married to accused 1 on 20-8-2004 about 11/2 years prior to the incident. The accused were harassing and inflicting cruelty on the deceased to bring cash of Rs. 5,000/- and two tolas of gold. The deceased during her visit to her parents house used to implore with her mother for meeting the demand. The mother used to console and assure that the demand would be met. The harassment continued. The deceased, unable to bear the harassment committed suicide by consuming poison. The father was informed by accused 1 about that incident and he goes to the house of the accused, later on, lodges complaint with the police.3. The prosecution has marked in evidence a contradictory portion of the evidence of P.W. 3 rec...

Sharanabasappa Vs. the General Manager (R and E), Bharat Sanchar Nigam ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ637

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is by a person who is aggrieved as he has not been provided employment on compassionate ground in the first respondent-organization as petitioner's father who was working as Phone-Inspector in the very organisation had died while in service and the petitioner it appears has made an application seeking employment on compassionate ground.2. Notice having been issued to respondents, the respondents have entered appearance and have filed their statement of objection and additional statement. The respondents have sought to justify their action for denying employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground for the reason that the financial conditions of the petitioner does not warrant such action in terms of the recommendation made by the High Power Committee set up for examination of such cases.3. It is against this communication dated 31-7-2003 vide Annexure-A this writ petition is filed. The brief facts are that the petitioner's father ...

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

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Kar)480; ILR2006KAR2006; [2006]287ITR69(KAR); [2006]287ITR69(Karn)

N. Kumar, J.1. Sri S. Parthasarathi, learned Counsel takes notices for the respondent.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. As the matter could be disposed of on a short point, by consent of the parties, this appeal is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this judgment.3. In this appeal the revenue has challenged the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, made in ITA No. 1284/Bang/2002 dated 7th April 2005 upholding the order of the appellate authority and holding that the respondent is entitled to 40 per cent depreciation for the motor vehicles which are used in business of running them on hire.4. Few facts leading to this appeal are as under: The respondent-assessed had leased to ferry BPL employees from city to factory and back to the residence, the motor vehicles for its sister concern. The assessee. claimed deprecation at. 40 per cent. The assessing officer restricted the depreciation to 20 per cent on the ground that the assessee is entitled...