Karnataka Court March 2006 Judgments

Jindal thermal Power Company Limited (Formerly Jindal Tracteble Power ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Kar)381; [2006]286ITR182(KAR); [2006]286ITR182(Karn)

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These two writ petitions are disposed of by this common order as they are involved common question of law.2. Writ Petition No. 5334/2003 is filed challenging the demand made by the respondent as per Annexure-C in so far as it relates to the demand pertaining to levying of interest under Section 234-B and 234-C of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') aggregating to Rs. 71,12,704/- for the assessment year 2001-02 for the alleged default in payment of advance tax and Writ Petition No. 39460/2003 is filed challenging the intimation Annexure-C in so far as it demands the interest payable under Section 234-B and 234-C of the Act aggregating to Rs. 45,49,720/- for the assessment year 2002-03 for the alleged default in payment of advance tax.3. It is the contention of the petitioner which is common in both the petitions that a Division Bench of this Court has held that there is no obligation to pay advance tax in excess of assessment corresponding to provisions o...

State of Karnataka, by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Indi Sub-divis ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(5)KarLJ85

1. 5th October, 1991 was a black Saturday in the lives of Phulabai, Vimalabai, Gourabai, Channabasappa, Masuteppa, Sadashiva, Malkappa, Shivanand, Shrishail and Mallappa Havappa Kattimani. It was on that day, these persons were burnt alive in the house of Channabasappa. When the accused persons chased the above persons and the deceased persons took shelter in the house of Channabasappa, the accused encircled the house of Channabasappa and the neighbouring houses and they set fire to the house of Channabasappa as well as the house of Pavitra Bai, teacher (tenant of Channabasappa) and the said act was done by the process of procuring kerosene with the help some of the accused and it was sprinkled on the house of deceased Channabasappa and the teacher above named, and firewood was brought by some of the accused and some of the accused lit fire and set the houses ablaze and due to the fire engulfing the houses, the above named ten persons were literally baked to death. One of the victims h...

ibrahim Sab Imam Sab Mulla and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ2738

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition, which should have been disposed of along with the order passed by this Court on 6-8-2004, when an application was filed by a party who came on record by way of impleadment, for vacating the earlier interim order of stay that had been granted by this Court on 29-7-2004, has nevertheless been retained on the Board in this Court, as the circumstance indicated that the petitioners, if not both at least the first petitioner who has sworn to an affidavit in support of the petition averments, had caused not only production of a false or forged certificate on the basis of which an interim order has been obtained, but had also sworn to an affidavit affirming that such copy was a true copy of the original. The order dated 6-8-2004 gives the facts and circumstance, which reads as under:I.A. No. II of 2004 for impleading is an application filed by a sitting member of the Kustagi Town Panchayat, praying for being added as a party respondent to thi...

State of Karnataka Vs. Abdul Rasheem and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3169

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. A. 1 is convicted for an offence punishable Under Section. 87 r/w Section 379 IPC and sentenced to S.I. for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo SI. for two months. In the charge sheet there are three accused persons.... A.2 and A.3 are absconding and the case against them is split up before the trial Court. A. 1 is tried and convicted.2. The prosecution case discloses that A. 1 was the driver of a private jeep. A.2 and A.3 were the inmates of the jeep. When the forest officials intercepted and checked the jeep, they found 100 Kgs. of sandal wood consisted in 47 rough dressed billets. Under a mahazar, the contraband is seized. The facts of the prosecution case disclose that all the three accused persons shared common intention and were smuggling the sandal wood.3. The charge sheet material discloses that all the accused persons shared common intention and were jointly transporting sandal wood billets. There is a grave lapse o...

Mohammed Hashim Vs. Ameeruddin

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11. of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act').2. Petitioner and the respondent are brothers and partners of a partnership firm in terms of a Partnership Deed dated 1-4-1986 (copy at Annexure-A), The partnership deed contains clause for referring the disputes and questions in connection with the partnership or under the Deed as between the partners or their legal representatives etc., to be referred for arbitration etc..3. Clause 15 of the Partnership Deed reads as under:15. All disputes and questions in connection with the partnership or this Deed arising between the partners or between any of them and the legal representatives of the other or between their respective legal representatives and whether during the continuation of the partnership or after the determination thereof shall be referred to arbitration of two Arbitrators, one to be appointed by each partner and in case of their disagreem...

Dr. Y.K. Nagarajaiah Vs. the Vice-chancellor, Kuvempu University and o ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. In the instant case, petitioner assailing the correctness of the impugned endorsement dated 16th/17th March, 2004 issued by second respondent vide Annexure-G, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, he has sought for a direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to issue the correct certificate mentioning as M.D. (Radio-Diagnosis) in place of M.D. (Radiology).2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner has been deputed by the Government for study of M.D. in Radio-Diagnosis at J.J.M. College and accordingly, he joined M.D. in Radio-Diagnosis at J.J.M. Medical College, Davanagere and then qualified for M.D. in Radio-Diagnosis in March 1997. Thereafter, he served as a specialist in Megunn Hospital, Shimoga for three years and from the year 2000, he has been serving as senior specialist at Tumkur District Hospital. To substantiate his case that, he was studying M.D. in Radio-Diagnosis at J.J.M. Medical College and not...

Gunde Rao Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner is before me challenging the order of the Land Tribunal dated 19-4-1988 in this petition.2, According to petition averments, petitioner is a shareholder Inamdar along with respondents 3 and 4 of lands situated in Sy, No. 235 measuring 31 acres 37 guntas, Sy. No. 236 measuring 12 acres 4 guntas and Sy. No. 238 measuring 18 acres 34 guntas situated at Village Khodli and were inam. lands belonging to respondent 2. Father of the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are brothers and sons of late Gunde Rao. Gunde Rao was a Archak and he died in 1950. Father of the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 jointly succeeded to the Inam lands referred to above and have equal share in the lands and thus were jointly in possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the lands in question. Father of the petitioner died in the year 1980, and consequently, the petitioner being his son succeeded to the lands in question along with respondents 3 and 4. Petitioner and respondent 3 fil...

Sri Vishnu Ganapathi Naik Vs. the Management of Nwkrtc

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1863; 2006(3)KarLJ356

H.L. Dattu, J.1. The workman being aggrieved by the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, in K.I.D. No. 403/2003 dated 13.7.2004 had filed a petition in W.P. No. 48999/2004 before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Learned Single Judge by his order dated 27.7.2005, has rejected the writ petition and has confirmed the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli. It is the correctness or otherwise of the said order is questioned by the workman in this appeal.2. The matter is posted before the Court for preliminary hearing. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the law declared by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gurushanth Pattedar v. Mahaboob Shahi Kulburga Mills and Anr. : AIR2005Kant377 . In the said decision, the Court at Paragraph 4 has observed as under:4. Petitions are very often filed both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. When ...

Ananth Vs. the State of Karnataka Department of Co-operation and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1900; 2006(3)KarLJ428

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:a) A writ in the nature of declaration, declaring that sub-section 4A of Section 29G introduced by enactment of Act No. 24/2001 vide Annexure-A is ultra vires of Section 28A and 29F of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, (herein after called as 'Act) 1959.b) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to declare that the resolution dated 9.4.2002 vide Annexure-B passed by the 3rd respondent society as illegal and without authority of law.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri K.R. Sreenivas Patavardhan appearing for shanthesh Gureddi submits that he is not pressing prayer (b). The said submission is recorded.3. The petitioner has questioned the validity of Sub-section (4-A) of Section 29G which is inserted by Act No. 24/2001 with affect from 5.9.2001 on the ground that the same is ultra vires of Sections 28A and 29F of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred...

M.S. Jaikumar Prop Vs. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(3)KarLJ498

ORDERN.K. Patil, J1 In all these Writ Petitions, Petitioners assailing the correctness of the endorsement dated 14th June 2004, communication dated 27th October 2003 and the rejection order dated 11th March 2004 respectively vide Annexure A in all the three Writ Petitions, issued by second respondent, have presented the instant Writ Petitions.2. The only grievance of the petitioners in these petitions is that, petitioners have filed the applications for renewal of the registration as advertisers from second respondent to carryout outdoor advertising within the limits of First Respondent-Mahanagara Palike and petitioners have been displaying advertisements on the hoarding, Neo-signs erected by the petitioners' Advertising Agency and paying advertisement tax to the Mahanagara Palike in respect of the displays made by them. The said applications filed by petitioners had come up for consideration before the Second Respondent and the Second Respondent, after considering the request of petit...