Karnataka Court June 2006 Judgments

H.K. Sathisha S/O Krishne Gowda Vs. State by Rural Police

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3756; ILR2006KAR2713; 2007(4)KarLJ19

B. Padmaraj J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 20.4.2002, whereby and whereunder he has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The appellant has however been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act2. The prosecution charge against the accused was that on 10.4.1998 at about 1.00 p.m. in the afternoon in front of the house of Krishne Gowda - PW.2 at Avathi Hosahalli village, Chikmagalur Taluk, the appellant - accused attempted to commit the murder of his father Krishne Gowda - PW.2 by firing shots at him with DBBL Gun with such intention and knowledge and under such circumstances that by that...

Smt. Siddavva W/O Shivappa Hosamani, 50 Years and Smt. Paravva W/O Mal ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(5)KarLJ353

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioners are before this Court challenging Annexure 'B' an order dated 22.10.2001 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwar in Writ Petition No. 26247/2002. The petitioners according to the petition averments are the heirs of the original tenant. Subject matter of this Writ Petition is that the lands bearing R.S.No. 50/1 measuring 7 acres 25 guntas and R.S.No. 26/1A measuring 5 acres 25 guntas, are situated at Adaragunchi Village, Hubli Taluk. The petitioners and their ancestors were the tenants of the lands in question. An application was filed seeking for occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal, Hubli. The Land Tribunal granted rights in favour of the petitioners and other LRs of Ramappa Gurappa Allapur. The same was challenged by the 3rd respondent in W.P.No. 1553/1983. Petition was allowed. Matter was remanded. The 3rd respondent stated before the Tribunal that he had filed an application Under Section 15 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, inter...

Samrat Granite (P) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006]148STC52(Kar)

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Sri N. Nagaraju, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the prayer (a) made in writ petition regarding striking down rule 157(1)(a) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, as void and unconstitutional. Permission is granted. Hence, the matter is heard on other prayers.2. Brief facts of. the case are that : the petitioner was transporting granite blocks pursuant to purchase under the Tax Invoice No. 016 dated February 24, 2006, accompanied by delivery note in Form VAT No. 515. Those documents are produced at annexures 'A' and 'B' to the writ petition respectively. The vehicle which was carrying the granite blocks was checked at a check-post. At the time of inspection, the driver of the lorry produced the aforesaid documents vide annexures 'A' and 'B' before the first respondent. The said fact is not in dispute.3. According to the first respondent, the delivery note which accompanied the goods, should have been in ...

Dr. Jyoti Bala D/O M Om Prakash, Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University for Healt ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. Writ petition by persons who had aspired to get admission to post-graduate dental course in one of the colleges forming a consortium known as Karnataka Religious & Linguistic Minority Professional Colleges' Association, and who had appeared in a written examination held on 19-2-2006 and who had been apprised that their performance had been good enough to secure 5th and 10th rank respectively in such examinations; but who complain that they have been preempted of securing seats in fourth respondent dental college - a college of choice of first petitioner amongst three colleges i.e. respondents 2, 3 and 4 who had formed the fifth respondent consortium - notwithstanding high ranking in the examination, as the petitioners were never intimated to attend the counselling wherein they could have chosen a college of their choice for admission to the course.2. Initially, the writ petition had been filed by three persons. The second petitioner by filing an applica...

Smt. N. Nagamma W/O Late Sri K. Subbarayappa, Vs. H.A. Somashekaraiah ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. These two petitions have been filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore in H.R.C. No. 761/90 dated 26.9.2002. Hence, they are taken up together for disposal.2. H.R.R.P. No. 58/03 is filed by the tenant being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court in allowing the petition under Section 27(2)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and H.R.R.P. No. 57/03 is filed by the landlord being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the grounds raised by the petitioner under Section 27(a)(2)(c)(1) and (i) of the Karnataka Rent Act of 1999.3. The eviction petition was filed during 28.3.1990 against the original tenant who died on 31.3.90, thereafter, the L.Rs., of the original tenant were brought on record; the original respondent was the tenant under the petitioner in respect of the petition premises which is a residential premise bearing Corporation No. 24 and present municipal No. 24/2 situated in Jumma Masjid R...

Commissioner of Income-tax Karnataka-central Vs. Mcdowell and Co. Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Kar)356; [2007]288ITR666(KAR); [2007]288ITR666(Karn)

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The Revenue is before us in the light of the following questions of law framed by the Tribunal in the light of the order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No. 2020, 2021 & 2022/1990:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the guarantee commission paid to Sri. Vijay Mallya, the Chairman/Director of the Company, was not covered by the provisions of Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as it then existed?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the disallowance of the amounts of depreciation, insurance premium rent on furniture relating to the residential accommodation 'Niladri' on the ground that in as much as the expenses were not allowable specifically Under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, the provisions of Section 37(4) would not apply thereto?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rig...

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Nipani Branch, Through Its Divisional Off ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007ACJ50; 2007(4)KarLJ338

1. In this appeal, National Insurance Co. has questioned the finding of the Tribunal saddling liability on it to pay the compensation to the injured claimants.2. We have heard learned Counsel Sri. A.N. Krishna Swamy for the appellant and the learned Counsel, Sri. Vigneshwar Shastri, for the respondents. It is contended by Sri. A.N. Krishna Swamy that the policy in question does not cover the risk of the coolies carried in the tractor-cum-trailor as no extra premium was paid to cover such a larger liability and in view of this position, it is not in dispute between the parties that the Tribunal could not have fastened the entire liability on the Insurance Co., but at the most, it could have confined the liability of the respondent - Insurance Co. to that which arises out of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court. So far as the quantumof compensation is concerned, learned Counsel for the respondent has got no grievance. Theref...

V. Rama Shetty S/O V. Babu Shetty Vs. N. Sasidaran Nayar Major, Teleco ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(2007)BC597

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The respondent accused is prosecuted for the offence under Section 136 of the Negotiable instruments Act. The accused issued a cheque for Rs. 74,000/- dated 16.3.1998 and another cheque for Rs. 79,600/- dated 13.3.1998 both drawn on Vijaya Bank towards discharge of the loan. On first presentation, the cheques are dishonoured. Bank intimations are marked as Exs.P3 and P4. On the second occasion, both the cheques were presented together for collection. Ex.p8 is the bank intimation of dishonour dated 5.8.1998. Statutory notice is issued on 19.8.1998 by registered post which was received on 24.8.1998. The complaint was presented on 22.9.1998.2. Per contra, the accused contends that he has not borrowed Rs. 1,53,600/- at all; he had borrowed only Rs. 25,000/- and the complainant had collected two blank signed cheques as security. The loan of Rs. 25,000/- is discharged in full. The complainant has dishonestly fabricated the two cheques as Exs.P1 and P2 to launch false pr...

Karnataka Public Service Commission Represented by Its Secretary Vs. S ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(3)KCCR1890; 2008(6)AIRKarR235

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. In response to the notification of the petitioner Karnataka Public Service Commission inviting applications for the post of Groups-A and B, Respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted their applications. In the application submitted for the preliminary examination they claimed benefit of reservation under Group-3B category. After the results of the preliminary examination were published the respondents submitted their applications for the main examination. In the said applications they claimed the benefit of reservation under Group-3A category. Their applications for appealing in the main examination were rejected by the Karnataka Public Service Commission on the ground that they had not submitted any documents in support of their claim for reservation under Group-B category. The Public Service Commission took the stand that, having claimed the benefit of reservation under Group-3B in the preliminary examination the respondents were not entitled to change the category and c...

Timmanna S/O Gurappa Bandiwaddar, Vs. Channabasappa Benappa Banadal,

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007ACJ2475; ILR2006KAR2725

ORDERV. Jagannathan, J.1. One Sunkavva died in a road accident on 11.08.1995. Her husband and children have filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore. In the course of evidence, the Tribunal relying on an agreement said to have been entered into between the husband of the deceased and the owner of the vehicle in question as per Ex.R.1, held that the claimants are not entitled, to any sum as compensation because of the said agreement which evidences receipt of Rs. 15,000/- towards full settlement of compensation. It is this finding of the Tribunal that is assailed in this appeal by the claimants.2. We have heard learned Counsel Sri. C.H. Jadhav, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. Venkatesh, for sri. C.M. Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent.3. Sri. Jadhav, learned Counsel submits that the Tribunal could not have accepted the agreement entered into between the husband of the deceased and the owner and the same is...