Karnataka Court July 2006 Judgments

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Margoan Branch Through Its Regional O ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(2007)ACC620; 2007ACJ251; ILR2006KAR28; 2006(5)KarLJ290

V. Jagannathan, J.1. All these three appeals arise out of one and the same order passed by the MACT, Belgaum and hence, they have been disposed of by this common order.2. M.F.A. No. 8622/03 is filed by M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited and the main ground urged in this appeal is that the claimants had filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and later on got it converted into Section 163(A) of the Act and the Tribunal though recorded a positive finding that the income of the deceased was Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum, it confined it to Rs. 40,000/- p.a. so as to bring the case within the ambit of Section 163(A). This procedure followed by the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and therefore, the claim petition, in so far as M.V.C. No. 785/99 is concerned, ought to have been dismissed by the Tribunal and the appeal filed by the insurance company be allowed on this ground alone. The further ground urged in this appeal by the insurance compa...

Mallappa and Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. by Revenue Secretary,

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR3610; 2007(4)KarLJ503

ORDERRam Mohad Reddy, J.1. The Petitioners' father by name Basavanneppa Kabanur and the father of respondent No. 3 are said to be brothers. Father of respondent No. 3 filed a declaration in form No. 7 - Annexure A under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (for short the Act) for being registered as an occupant of land measuring 2 acres in S.No. 42/3 of Kalkatte village, Shiggaon Taluk. Haveri District, being a member of the joint family consisting of himself and his brother Basavanneppa Kalappa Kabanur. During the pendency of the proceeding, before the Land Tribunal the declarant died and his son, the respondent No. 3, herein, the legal representative, was brought on record. The father of the petitioners, by way of abundant caution, filed a representation dated 8.10.97 Annexure - D, requesting the Land Tribunal to consider the grant of occupancy rights jointly in favour of the declarant as well as himself. It is alleged that the Land Tribunal without reference to eith...

C.P. Bharathi and anr. Vs. Anjanappa (Deceased by L.Rs.) and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2007Kant31; 2007(4)KarLJ706

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. A short and an important question arises in this review petition is; whether Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked to review the judgment by a person who is not a party either in the suit or in the appeal.2. One Anjanappa filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit schedule property in O.S. No. 332/1971, which was later renumbered as O.S. 1318/1980. The suit property is measuring 4 acres 14 guntas of dry land in Sy. No. 39/4 of Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk along with an existing tiled roof house. A purchaser of the property had also filed a suit in O.S. No. 177/1973, which was later renumbered as O.S. No. 473/81 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore for the relief of declaration and for possession in respect of the property mentioned in the suit. These two suits were clubbed together and a common judgment was passed. The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 131...

B.N. Siddananjappa (Since Deceased by L.Rs. Smt. Rudramma and ors.) Vs ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ291

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to as per their status before the trial court.2. This is a defendant's appeal. Appellant was defendant in O.S. No. 64/2002 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), KGF. Respondent was the plaintiff.3. Initially, plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 167/98 before the civil Judge (Jr. Dn), KGF for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant and for perpetualinjunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Originally the suit was filed for bare injunction in O.S. No. 167/98. Later on, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of plaint and requested the court to direct the defendant to deliver possession of the suit property on the ground that he has been dispossessed by the defendant during the pendency of the suit. An additional written statement was also filed by the defendant.4. Pursuant to the amendment to the pla...

K. Appa Rao S/O Late K. Appa Rao Vs. Tungabhadra Steel Products Ltd. ( ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2007(112)FLR89]; ILR2006KAR3978

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent - organisation in February 1993. He was promoted as Senior Accounts Officer on probation on 1.9.2001. The petitioner was confirmed in the post of Senior Accounts Officer on 25.1.2003. On 24.3.2003, the petitioner submitted his resignation to the post of Company Secretary of which he was placed in additional charge and to the post of Senior Accounts Officer, which is the basic appointed poet to the third respondent. The third respondent had issued an office order assigning the post of Company Secretary to the Deputy Manager (Finance), one Sri J. Madhusudhan Rao and the petitioner handed over the charge to him on 3.4.2003. The respondent had reallocated the work of the petitioner in the Bill Section on 3.4.2003. However, on 4.4.2003, the petitioner sought to withdraw his resignation to the post of Senior Accounts Officer. But the same was returned to the petitioner by an office order of the fourth respondent, while inti...

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Abcon Engineering and Sys ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)208CTR(Kar)146; [2006]287ITR201(KAR); [2006]287ITR201(Karn)

1. All these cases are disposed of by this common order.ITA 86/99This appeal is at the Instance of the revenue. In relation to the assessment year 1995-96, the assessment was concluded in the respondent assessee's case, disallowing deduction as claimed under Section 80(O) of the Income Tax Act. An appeal was filed before the Appellate Commissioner. The appeal Stood dismissed. Thereafter an appeal was preferred to the tribunal. The tribunal allowed the appeal in terms of an order dtd 8-4-1999. Aggrieved by the order of the tribunal, the revenue is before us. The following questions of law are framed by this Court;Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the tribunal is correct in law in holding that the appellant is entitled for the relief in respect of deduction under Section 80-O of the Act?Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is correct in law in entertaining the appeal by condoning the delay?ITRC 25/2000This reference is again at the in...

Arjun Yamunappa Dalawayi and Srishaila Venkappa Meni Vs. the State of ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ369

V. Gopala Gonda, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellants aggrieved by the operative portion of the order dated 29.6.2006 passed in W.P.7768/2006 wherein liberty is given to the 4th respondent-APMC to conduct the meeting to discuss the No-Confidence Motion moved against the appellants, on any future date after notifying its members. The Appellants have prayed for setting aside that portion of the order by allowing this appeal, urging various grounds.2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, placing strong reliance upon Section 44(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter called as 'Act') submits that Sub-section (1) of the aforesaid provision provides that if a No-Confidence Motion is moved and fails, a fresh motion of No-confidence cannot be moved for a period of six months; that the purpose of providing such provision in the statute is to avoid un-healthy situation created by moving No-...

Sri B.C. Sathyanarayana S/O B.K. Chamaraju Vs. Smt. B.N. Jagannatha Ra ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(5)KarLJ140

ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. HRRP 511/2002 arises out of the order passed by the 19th Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in HRC 1506/1997. HRRP 567/1999 arises out of the order passed by the Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in HRC 1500/1997.2. HRC 1506/1997 was filed by the petitioner landlady seeking for possession of the petition shop premises beating No. 1 comprised in premises No. 283, 7th Cross, 1st Main Road, K N Extension, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore 22, for her bonafide use and occupation for commencement of business. According to the petitioner, the petition premises was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- during the year 1970 for the purpose of running a General Stores by the tenant. According to the petitioner, the schedule shop premises and also other shop premises bearing Nos. 2 to 5 comprised in the property bearing No. 283 are adjacent to each other. The petitioner's husband has retired from service and her son has studied BBM and they intend to start a departmental store...

Perikal Malappa Vs. T. Venkatesh Gupta

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR3313

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This is the defendant's appeal. The respondent was plaintiff in O.S. No. 1585 of 1996 on the file of the City Civil Judge at Bangalore. The appellant was the defendant in the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to demolish the compound put up by him in B schedule property in the area marked as ABCD in the annexed sketch and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the putting up any construction in the area shown as ABCD.3. According to the plaint averments, plaintiff is the co-owner of property bearing Nos. 25 and 26 situated at Setty Muddanna Lane, Cottonpet, Bangalore-53. According to him he has become the owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed executed by one Krishnamurthy and Ors.. Krishnamurthy is none other than the brother of the defendant. According to him, he has obtained licence and plan for construction of a building. The defendant being a loc...

National Textile Corporation (APKK and M) Limited represented hereIn b ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity) holding that employees of the petitioner working in its showrooms are entitled to parity in wages and other benefits on par with employees of its Divisional Office.2. The petitioner states that it is a Government company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a subsidiary of National Textile Corporation (hereinafter called 'NTC' for brevity). The NTC has 9 region-wise subsidiaries, the petitioner is one of them, controlling textile mills situated in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and the Union Territory of Mahe. There are 4 mills in Karnataka under the petitioner. There is a marketing Division in the petitioner Corporation. The service conditions of the employees working in the Corporate office, Textile Units and the Marketing Division are said to be distinct and separate from inception. This is ...