Karnataka Court July 2006 Judgments
Motamma Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ633
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 3.8.2002 Annexure-'S' of the Land Tribunal, Devanahalli, rejecting the 3rd respondent's application in Form No. 7.2. The petition averments disclose that by order dated 16.7.1981 in Case No. LRF 16/74-75, the Land Tribunal, Devanahalli, conferred occupancy rights over land measuring 2 acres 8 guntas in Sy. No. 13 of Lingadheeragollahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, in favour of the 3rd respondent, pursuant to which, the petitioner claims to have purchased the said land from the 3rd respondent under a deed of sale dated 23.1.1988, Annexure 'A', registered as Document No. 1191/87-88, in Book-1, Volume 1348, Pages 196 to 199, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Devanahalli, on 11.2.1988. It is further stated that on 9.7.1992 the Revenue Officials having drawn a mahazar, recording the factum of cultivation of land by the petitioner, the Tahsildar, by order dated 9.10.1997, directed the substitut...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. B.N. Dhotrad Vs. the Board of Directors/Cum-appellate Authority, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR3163
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. The question for consideration in this writ petition is 'whether an Officer, holding a post on in-charge basis, can exercise the substantive powers of the post ?'2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:Petitioner was an Assistant Task Force Commander in the Karnataka Land Army Corporation Limited (for short 'Corporation'), a Government of Karnataka Public Sector Undertaking. When he was working in the office of the Assistant Director of the Corporation, Bijapur, certain charges of misuse of advance amount and materials and default in making payment to material suppliers were levelled against him. In this connection, the Managing Director who is also the Disciplinary Authority had issued a show-cause notice on 16.07.1997. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 29.03.2000 (Annexure 'A') whereby three annual increments of the petitioner was with-held with cumulative effect and recovery of No. 4,72,892.53 was directed against him. The petitioner prefe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-2006
Reported in: 2008[11]STR555
1. Revenue is before us aggrieved by the order dated 1-9-2005 passed in appeal No. E/83/2004 by the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore.2. The respondent-assesses by mistake debited an amount of Rs. 1,58,099/- in excess of the duty payable in their PLA/CENVAT account for the month of March 2001. The same was brought to the notice of the Department by the respondent in terms of a letter dated 12-6-2001. The authorities directed the respondent to file a refund claim. Another letter was submitted by the assessee stating therein that there was an error committed in the matter. Subsequently, a refund application was also filed by the assessee. Claim was rejected on the ground of lapse of time by the Assistant Commissioner. The same was confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee moved the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the case of the assessee. It is in these circumstances, the Revenue is before us.3. Heard Shri Bhaskar, learned Counsel...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tam Tam Pedda Guruva Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Kar)30; ILR2006KAR3301; [2006]287ITR72(KAR); [2006]287ITR72(Karn)
R. Gururajan, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the revenue.2. Assessment order for the year 1991-92 was passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 25-3-1992. Thereafter reassessment proceedings were initiated and completed in terms of an order dtd 30-12-1994. In the meanwhile, noticing the failure to get the accounts audited under Section 44AB, a notice was issued on 8-6-1993. Penalty was also levied on 15-12-1993 by the department. The said penalty was confirmed by the Commissioner. The tribunal has set aside the penalty on the sole ground of limitation. It is in these circumstances, revenue is before us. This court at the time of admission has chosen to frame the following questions of law;Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the penalty proceedings initiated on 8-6-1993 and completed on 15-12-1993 were beyond the period of limitation? 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record....
Tag this Judgment!G. Noor Mohammed Vs. State of Karnataka by Secretary Home Ministry,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4294; 2006(5)KarLJ242
R. Gururajan, J.1. G. Noor Mohammed is before us seeking a writ to quash Annexure 'A' thereby declaring the detention in terms of Annexure 'A' dated 3.12.2003 as illegal and abinitio void.2. The petitioner is the father of the detenu Sri. Zull Mohamed. On or about 3.12.2003, an order of Detention dated 3.12.2003 was issued by Sri. Adhip Chaudary, Secretary to the Home Department. It was stated that Sri. Adhip Chaudary is specially empowered Under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. He was satisfied with respect to the detenu that with a view to prevent him in abetting the smuggling of goods, it is necessary to make the order of detention. He therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1)(ii) of the COFEPOSA Act directed that the detenu be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Bangalore. Detenu does not know English. He was furnished with Tamil version of Order of Detention. Detention order was served on 22.6.2005. Grounds of detention was also made available...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bripanil Synthetics (P) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(112)ECC537; 2006LC537(Karnataka)
R. Gururajan.J1. Revenue is before us aggrieved by an Final Order Nos. 732, 733 of 2005 dated 11.5.2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore in Appeal No. E/1171, 1172/2003.2. Facts of the case as narrated in the appeal are as follows: M/s Bripanil Synthetics Industries (P) Limited, Bangalore, respondent in this appeal, manufactures dipped tyre cord fabrics. Its office was at Magadi Road, Bangalore prior to April 1999. It was taken over by M/s Bripanil Industries Limited. Search was conducted on 6.8.1996, 7.8.1996 and 8.8.1996. It resulted in seizure of incriminating documents at the above said premises. The Officer noticed shortage of stock of grey tyre cord fabrics valued at Rs. 5,96,897/- and the shortage of dipped tyre cord fabrics valued at Rs. 48,73,743/-. Mahazar was drawn. Show cause notice was issued on 31.8.2001 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why basic duty and the additional duty should not be demanded and...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Pundalika Savanna Kaladagi S/O Savanna Kaladagi Vs. the State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR649]
ORDERAnand Byraredd, J.1. The petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing on 22.6.2006 notice was directed to respondent No. 1 and was directed to be listed on 26.6.2006 for consideration of the interim prayer, and all parties were directed to maintain status quo till then. On 26.6.2006, the interim order was continued. The petitioner was heard on 3.72006. The petitioner's application seeking amendment was allowed and the matter was adjourned to 7.7,2006 to enable the respondents to file statement of objections. And the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS for brevity) was directed to be impleaded as a party by the Court. The pleadings were complete (except for KIMS) on 7.7.2006 and the matter was heard for final disposal by consent of Counsel as the hearing on interim relief entailed a veritable hearing on the very merits of the main petition. Though KIMS had not filed its statement of objections - the Counsel appearing for KIMS was also heard at length on the issues urged.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Karnataka State Agro Corn Produ ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(112)ECC533; 2006LC533(Karnataka); 2008[9]STR597
R. Gururajan, J.1. Commissioner of Central Excise is before us seeking an order to set aside the final order No. 1076 of 2005 dated 4.7.2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Southern Zonal Bench, Bangalore. Revenue also wants the questions of law as referred to in paragraph-3 to be answered in the case on hand.(a) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the CESTAT is legally justified in coming to the conclusion that the Respondent has not 'unduly enriched itself' in spite of Section 12-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and in the absence of sufficient evidence by the Respondent to rebut the presumption under the said Section?(b) Whether it is permissible for the CESTAT to totally ignore the effect of Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944?(c) Whether the CESTAT is right in coming to the conclusion that the assessee is eligible for the refund when they have charged the duty on the State Government of Karnataka who have absorbed/ suffer...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Jeevan Prakash Vs. Shabeer Ahamad Shariff and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1709
V. Jagannathan, J.1. The appellant who had sustained fracture of the left forearm in an accident that took place on 1.12.1998 at 9 a.m. was awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000 (sic Rs. 15,000) as compensation and the liability was put on the shoulders of the driver and the owner. It is this order, which is questioned in this appeal.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. O. Mahesh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3.3. Insofar as the question of liability is concerned, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the accident took place on 1.12.1998 at 9 a.m. and on the very same day, the owner had paid the premium as per Exh. P3, but, however, the policy was issued, to be commencing from 2.12.1998, as per Exh. R1 and the Tribunal taking note of the time mentioned in the policy, Exh. R1, did not fasten the liability on the insurance company, but on the other hand, directed the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 2, to satisfy the award amount and as such ...
Tag this Judgment!B.E. Chandrashekar S/O G. Eraiah, Vs. State of Karnataka by Peenya Pol ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ486
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the charge-sheet in Crime No. 152/2000 registered by the Peenya Police, Bangalore City and the proceedings in C.C. No. 16443/2001 on the file of the VII Additional CMM, Bangalore.2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition can be summarized as follows: The petitioners 1, 2 and 3 are accused 1, 2 and 3. At the relevant point of time, when the accident/ incident occurred, Accused No. l was the Chief Engineer of Transmission, Accused No. 2 was the Superintending Engineer, SRS station arid Accused No. 3 was the Assistant Executive Engineer. As of now, all the petitioners/ accused are no longer in service. The matrix of the prosecution case is that on 05.04.2000 at about 2.30 p.m., a couple of children were playing with a ball. During the said play, the ball fell on the roof top of M/s. Sonata Machine Tools factory. The prosecution case is that the said roof does not have any access either by stair...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »