Karnataka Court June 2006 Judgments

Sathavahana Ispat Limited, by Its Managing Director, A.S. Rao by Its P ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: III(2007)BC775; 2006CriLJ4812

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The respondent-accused entered into an agreement with the complainant at Ex.D-1. The complainant agreed to make credit supplies giving a month's time for payment of the value of the supplies made to the accused. The agreement Ex.D-1 stipulates that the accused shall deposit blank signed cheques as security and to be used in the future course if there is any default in payment of the moneys by the accused for the credit supplies made. In other words, the agreement makes it specifically clear that the cheques are not issued in respect of any current or past liabilities, they are issued to the complainant to be used if there is any default in payment of future credit supplies.2. The relevant provision of Section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 is extracted hereunder:138. Dishonour of cheque for Insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account:Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to ano...

N. Narayanappa (Since Dead by Lrs. Smt. Rajalakshmi W/O Narayanappa) V ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR3027; 2006(5)KarLJ334

ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. This revision is under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the eviction petition filed by the petitioner/landlord in HRC 618/2001.2. The original petitioner/landlord died during pendency of the petition and his wife represents him. The petition was filed under the old Act under Section 21(1)(h)(p) & (f) of the Rent Control Act, 1961 seeking for eviction of the tenant from the petition premises on the ground of requirement for the sister-in-law of the original petitioner who is none other than the sister of the present petitioner who is contesting the case and also on the ground of subletting and alternate accommodation is available to the tenant. The same was contested by the respondent denying the pleadings. According to him, he has no other alternate accommodation and there is no subletting and, the petition is filed with an intention to evict him. The trial court after enquiry negated the contention of t...

The Management of Bharat Earth Movers Limited Rep. by Its Company Secr ...

Court: Karnataka

V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The respondent was a workman in Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Kolar Gold Field (hereinafter referred to as 'BEML'). He sustained injuries during the course of employment on 19/04/1984. The Medical Board of the BSI assessed 100% disability. Therefore he was paid disablement benefit at the rate of Rs. 28/- per day. Invoking Regulation 98 of ESI Regulations (General), the workman was discharged from employment w.e.f 15/05/1989. Aggrieved by the same the workman raised Industrial Dispute. The Labour Court passed Award dt. 30/06/2006 in Ref. No. 188/1992 directing the management of BEML to reinstate the workman in a suitable post without backwages but with continuity of service. Challenging the said Award, the workman filed W.P No. 4945/2001. The learned Single Judge clubbed both the petitions and passed the order dismissing the Writ Petition of the management and allowing the Writ Petition of the workman by granting the following reliefs:a) The petitioner is entitled to co...

K. Devadas Kumar S/O Late K. Gopal Sriram Vs. A. Umesh S/O B. Monappa ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR3076; 2006(5)KarLJ233

1. This Writ Appeal is filed by the purchaser questioning the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 23536/05 dated 12.1.2006 in quashing the order of confirmation of sale of the property in question and sale certificate dated 11.8.2005 issued in favour of appellant, urging various grounds:2. The learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil appealing on behalf of the appellant submits that the first respondent herein has not availed alternative remedy provided to him under Section 106 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (in short 'the Act') as the order that would be passed under Section 101-A of the Act is an order passed under Section 101 of the Act, an appeal under Section 106 of the Act is provided i.e. to other authority is maintainable. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not have exercised his extra-ordinary jurisdiction to quash the impugned order of confirmation of sale and certificate of sale. The learned Sr. Counsel in support of ...

Muniswamy S/O Vellaswamy Vs. State by Regional Transport Officer, Repr ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR3032

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In all these revision petitions as common questions of facts and law are raised, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts in brief leading to these revision petitions are that, a complaint came to be registered against the revision petitioners under Section 12(1) as per the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (Act for short) by the jurisdictional RTO alleging that the accused/ the owner of the lorry bearing No. MYY 6891 being liable to pay the tax as per the provisions contained under Section 3(4)(a) of the Act, had not paid the same and had fallen in arrears for the period 1.5.1999 to 1.5.2002. Demand notices were sent to the accused calling upon him to pay the tax. Though served with notice by registered post, the accused did not comply with the demand made. Therefore, the RTO filed charge sheet against the accused in respect of offences allegedly committed for different periods which came to...

B. Mahadevaiah S/O Late Basappa Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Re ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ672

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 and the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4.2. The essential facts of the case are that, the petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of Sy. No. 25 measuring 3 acres 18 guntas situated at Manavarthakaval village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, having purchased the said land under registered safe deed in the year 1990. The land was granted to the vendors of the petitioner by the Government that was originally numbered as Sy.No. 7, subsequently it was renumbered as 25 and revenue records stood as Revenue No. 25 only. While executing sale deed by mistake it was mentioned as Sy.No. 26/1, though the boundaries described in the sale deed establish the fact that what was sold was Sy.No. 25 only and not 26/1, It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 purchased 4 acres of land by registered sa...

Sri T.M. Siddalingappa S/O Sri Kenchappa Vs. the Headquarters Assistan ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR2008; 2008(5)KarLJ187; 2008(2)KCCRSN106

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The appellant was a Deputy Director of Public Instructions in the service of the Government of Karnataka. He retired from service on superannuation on 30.4.1998. As he did not vacate the Government quarters after the expiry of the permissible period proceedings were initiated against him under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974. He vacated the premises only on 21.11.2003. As per Annexure-G communication dated 10.1.2005 the Executive Engineer, Buildings Division, ESI, Bangalore (third respondent herein) requested the Accounts Officer, Pension Section, Office of the Accountant General, Bangalore (second respondent) to recover an amount of Rs. 4,30,301/- towards arrears of rent of the Government quarters. The request was to recover the amount from the appellant's pension. Thereafter, as per Annexure-A, the communication dated 22.3.2005, the second respondent informed the fourth respondent Treasury Officer, C...

Mohammed Ali S/O Abdul Bashir Faroqui Vs. the Management of Karnataka ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)AIRKarR555

Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Assailing the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 18/19.10.2001 passed by the learned Addl.Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hubli, in R.A.No. 87/1995, the appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.2. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of both sides and perused the material on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their ranks before the trial Court.3. Brief facts of the case are : The plaintiff-appellant herein has filed suit praying to declare the orders at Annexures-'D', 'E' & 'F' (produced along with the suit) as illegal and void, and consequentially for permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants for recovering the amount on the strength of the order Annexure-'D' to the suit. He has also sought for certain other consequential reliefs.4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the enquiry conducted against him by the respondent-management is illegal and consequently, the orders passed by the...

M.L. Balaram, Proprietor, Vishnu Exports International Vs. Union of In ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(200)ELT12(Kar); [2006]70SCL8(Kar)

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the material on record. The petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Respondents-1 & 4 vide Annexures-H and Annexures-E1 to E6 respectively.2. Petitioner who is a manufacturer and exporter of the ready-made Garments availed the services of the Canara Bank Overseas Branch, Bangalore, an Authorised Dealer under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'FERA' for short) to deal with the export documents of the petitioner's establishment. The petitioner exported goods and claimed drawback concession Under Section 75 of the Customs Act 1962 and the same has been sanctioned and paid to the petitioner. After sanction of drawback money, the petitioner has failed to realise the sale proceeds within the prescribed period. It is not in dispute that the sale proceeds in respect of the goods exported had not been received within the stipulated time...

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Rep. by Its Senior Regional Ma ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006]148STC560(Kar)

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Heard Sri R.V. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the material on record.Sri R.V. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not press the main relief regarding striking down of Section 6-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act as substituted by Karnataka Act No. 5 of 2002 as being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 301 and 304(b) of the Constitution of India. The said submission is recorded. Hence, I proceed to pass the orders on the other reliefs claimed by the petitioner.3. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company, carrying on business of manufacture, sales and distribution of petroleum products and is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The petitioner-Company is a Government of India enterprise and the President of I...