Karnataka Court March 2006 Judgments

The State by the Psi of Bhatkal Town Police Station Vs. Karim M. S/O M ...

Court: Karnataka

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. A.1 to A.5 were charged for offence Under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908. The facts of the prosecution disclose that on 10-11-1997 at 7-30 p.m. A1 is the driver of the jeep bearing No. KL-11/C-5925, A.2 to A.5 are the inmates of the jeep. The jeep was stopped a Gulame Check Post by the police A.1 did not show licence. On suspicion the jeep was checked, country made bombs were concealed under the seat. There were knives and iron bars. In presence of punch witnesses P.W.1 and C.W.1 the check was conducted and panchanama was drawn at Ex.P.1.2. It is alleged that the jeep was a stolen jeep but the investigation agency has not conducted any investigation in that regard to prove that the accused were in unlawful possession of the jeep.3. On the report of P.W.5 who conducted check, FIR is registered. On the completion of investigation, the charge sheet is filed. The trial court finds that there were five inmates and only 3 bombs were found hence comes to ...

Hanamappa Ramappa Khajagal Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner-Hanamappa Ramappa Khajagal is before me challenging the Land Tribunal, Hungund denying occupancy rights in terms of its order dated 9-7-2002 (Annexure-H).2. Petitioner and his family members are tenants and are in actual possession of agricultural lands in Survey Nos. 6 and 74 situated at Waragodadinni, Hungund Taluk, Bagalkot District, measuring 1 acre 5 guntas and 13 acres 25 guntas respectively. Their family holds these lands as tenants since the time of their father. After the death of their father during 1973, petitioner being the eldest son along with his two brothers, constituting Joint Hindu Family, continued to cultivate as members of the joint family. Respondent 4 is the rival claimant in respect of the land in question. Respondent 4 filed Form 7 claiming grant of occupancy rights only to the extent of 4 acres 5 guntas in Sy. No. 74 and 1 acre 4 guntas in Survey No. 6. Both the claims were clubbed in the light of the order passed in L.R.R.P....

Sri K. Chandrashekara Vs. Sri S. Ganesha and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1966; 2006(3)KarLJ423

ORDERAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. This revision is presented under Section 115 of the C.P.C. against the concurrent orders-orders, dated: 18.9.2002 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,) Shimoga on I.A. No. 7 in HRC No. 11 of 2000 and the order, dated 2.6.2003 passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge, Shimoga, in R.R.P.No. 14 of 2002.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner instituted eviction proceedings invoking Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. When the petitioner's examination-in-chief was over and when the matter was set down for cross-examination of PW.1, the respondent No. 1 made an application under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, seeking the stoppage of all the proceedings and for a direction to the parties to approach the Civil Court for the determination of their rights. The Trial Court allowed I.A.No.7. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred Rent Revision Petition No. 14 of 2002 to the Dist...

Sri Govind Krishnarao Deshpande Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1872; 2006(3)KarLJ420

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioner-Govind Krishnarao is knocking the doors of this Court for the purpose of setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal, Dharwad dated 26-4-1979 in this Writ Petition. Sy.No. 54 measures 3 acres 6 guntas. It is situated in Lakamanahalli Village, Dharwad Taluk. The said land was taken by the Court of wards when the petitioner was a minor due to the insanity of the father of the petitioner The District Judge, Dharwad appointed the Deputy Commissioner as Court of wards. The property was under the management of the Court of wards. Thereafter, the Court discharged the management of wards.2. The 3rd respondent filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights. In Form No. 7, he has shown one Sri. Ananth Venkatesh Deshpande, Ganapathrao V Deshpande and the petitioner as the landlord in respect of Sy.No. 24. Sri Ganapath Rao and Anath Venkatesh Deshpande are the brothers of the petitioner's grandfather Sri. Anantrao Venkatesh Deshpande had died on 30-4-1958 Sri Gan...

E-spring Building Systems (i) Private Limited Vs. Regional Manager, Ta ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006ACJ1488; ILR2006KAR2021

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petition is under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act'), seeking for appointing M/s. Kodigi and Company, Sri Girish Kodgi Advocate, 5/1, SLN Mahal, I Floor, Link Road, 3 Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 003, as the Arbitrator to enter into reference and adjudicate the dispute between the parties.2. Respondent-M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, it appears had issued an 'All Risk Insurance Policy' in favour of the petitioner and that a certain claim has been put forth by the petitioner under the terms of the policy, but the claim itself having been rejected by the respondent, petitioner it appears had issued legal notice and had sought for conciliating the matter. Respondent not being enthusiastic had suggested for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of a clause in the policy itself, but the respondent being lukewarm even to such a suggestion had even got a legal notice issued, copy at Annexure...

Malathi Mohan Raman Vs. Syndicate Bank

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006(111)FLR1040]; 2006(5)KarLJ434

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Compassionate appointment to the dependent of a deceased employee has been the bone of contention in unending litigations before the Courts, particularly in writ jurisdiction, with the number of employers having the status of 'State' having proliferated, inclusive of banks, public sector undertakings owned by the State or Central Government, Government companies, organisations where the Government has direct or indirect control and anything and everything being roped into the concept of 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution.2. One such litigation is in the third round before this Court and refuses to see the end.3. Brief facts are: Petitioner is the widow of late Mohan Raman, who died while working as Assistant Manager in the services of the respondent-Bank, a nationalised Bank. That happened on 27-5-1998. It is thereafter the petitioner has been pursuing her efforts for see...

Uppinangady Grama Panchayath Vs. P. Narayana Prabhu

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(2007)BC381; 2006CriLJ3141; 2008(1)KarLJ349

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Both the appeals pertain to the same parties, on same set of facts, giving rise to similar liabilities but for distinct and different periods.2. The Uppinangady Grama Panchayath conducted public auction of the stalls. The respondent-accused is the successful bidder of stall No. 2. The terms of auction are as follows:(1) the successful bidder will be allotted the stall for a period of three years on leave and licence basis.(2) The entire bid amount shall constitute the total rent for the total period of three years.(3) One third of the bid amount shall be payable by cash immediately after the acceptance of bid. The balance of the bid amount representing two years rent could be payable by way of post dated cheques.The contract for occupation of the shop commenced from 1-7-1997. It is on record that even before completion of one year period, the respondent unilaterally terminated the contract, delivered the keys of the shop to the panchayath. The cheques issued by th...

Ramchandra Pesticides (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Kar)133; [2006]285ITR45(KAR); [2006]285ITR45(Karn); [2006]155TAXMAN111(Kar)

N. Kumar, J.The judgment of the court was delivered by.At the instance of the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, has referred the following questions of law for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that penalty under section 140A(3) for non-payment of tax on admitted income is leviable after holding that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for non-payment of the said tax 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that no lenience for assessees having reasonable cause for non-payment of self-assessment can be shown under law ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1983-84. The assessee filed a return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 1,94,530. The assessee paid advance tax on the due dates. However, the balance of Rs. 51,531 had not been paid within one month of filing of the return of income as required under section 140A of the Act. The assessing office...

Maruti Parashram Kugaji and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners 1 to 19, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned notices vide Annexures-D1 to D13, issued by the 2nd respondent dated 3-3-2006, bearing even No. Sain:Gra:A:Pa:27:JiPaSa:2006 and declare and quash the said notices as totally devoid of bona fides, the authority of law and as arbitrary and capricious, have presented this writ petition. Further, the petitioners have sought for a direction calling upon the 1st respondent to enquire into and take the required remedial action against the 3rd respondent for the usurpation and assumption of the powers of the Government that the 3rd respondent has resorted to in issuing the impugned notices dated 3-3-2006 mentioned above, and ensure the rule of law adumbrated in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The only grievance made out by the petitioners in this writ petition is that, all these petitioners are duly elected members of the 4th respondent-Taluk Panchayat. The first meeting of the sai...

P. Ramesh Baipadithaya Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. In. this petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to the Deputy Commissioner-2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 10-3-2006, in the proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent. The said representation is to be found at Annexure-A.2. The facts in brief can be stated as under:There is a temple known as Chennakeshava Temple situated at Sullia Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, It is governed by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The said temple is also declared as a public temple as contemplated under the said Act. It is the case of the petitioner that one Thudiyadka Vishnayya got himself declared as hereditary trustee of the said temple by making an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore as provided under Section 57 of the Act and he continued as a trustee of the said temple, without the knowledge of the petitioner, though the father of the petitioner was entitled for the said ...