Karnataka Court July 2006 Judgments

H.P. Basavarajappa Vs. K. Vijayalakshmi and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ326

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. In this petition, the order dated 6.8.2003 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Nanjangud Annexure-'D' passed in O.S.No. 104/2000 is called in question.2. The petitioner-plaintiff who instituted O.S.No. 104/2000 for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 28.9.1998 sought to introduce, in evidence, the said agreement engrossed on stamp paper of value of Rs. 100/-. The defendants in the suit objected to the marking of the said document for being insufficiently stamped. The Trial Court, having regard to the convenants in the agreement disclosing delivery of possession of the immovable property to the petitioner, held that Article 5(e)(i) of the Kamataka Stamp Act applies and the document liable for payment of duty and penalty on account of being insufficiently stamped.3. Smt. Geetha Devi, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Trial Court fell in error in recording a finding that the convenants in the agreement ...

Ramappa Vs. Assistant Commissioner and anr.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Heard Sri S.R. Hegde Hudlamane, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.G. Shivanna, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the respondent.2. The notice dated 21-6-2006 vide Annexure-D issued under Rule 3(2) of the Kamataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994, is under challenge. The said notice discloses that the meeting is fixed on 10-7-2006 to discuss the No-confidence Motion moved against the petitioner who is the Adhyaksha of Nagalapura Gram Panchayat. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the notice issued under Rule 3(2) of the said Rules, shall accompany the copy of the No-confidence Motion moved. He places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mallamma v. State of Kamataka and Ors. : ILR2002KAR4253 , in support of the said contention. However, the said contention is opposed by the learned Government Advocate.3. Relevant portion of Rule 3 o...

Sri H.D. Lakshminarayana Rao Vs. the District and Sessions Judge and a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR1412; 2008(6)KarLJ48; 2008(4)KCCRSN310(DB)

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. Petitioner was appointed as group-D employee in the unit of District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, as per the order dated 29/30-10-1975. As per the said order, the second respondent also was appointed as group-D employee in the same unit. Later, the second respondent was promoted as Second Division Assistant on 4-11-1983. The petitioner was given independent charge of the post of Second Division Assistant and posted as such as per Annexure-F order dated 22-5-1987. Later, as per the Annexure-G order dated 29-6-1990, the petitioner was regularly promoted as Second Division Assistant. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Annexure-F appeal, praying that he may be retrospectively promoted as Second Division Assistant from 1-6-1987. The said appeal was rejected by the High Court as per Annexure-K order dated 9-7-1996.2. Long thereafter, petitioner submitted an administrative appeal as per Annexure-L dated 10-12-2004 praying that the District & Sessions Judge, Shimoga may...

State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Secretary to Govt., Finance Department ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. State is before us aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 9.10.2003 passed in STA No. 390 & 391/2002 in the case on hand. The following question of law is raised:Whether the respondent could utilise the benefits of Form-37 declarations when not engaged in any manufacturing activity or sale of goods.2. The respondent is a registered dealer engaged in rendering heat treatment process to the materials brought by his customers. The respondent is said to have purchased machinery parts against Form-37 declaration and availed reduced rate of tax at 4% in terms of the Notification issued Under Section 8A of the Act. The assessing authority after notice came to a conclusion that the respondent has mis-used the facility given under the notification. He imposed penalty. The same was challenged by way of Writ Petition. Thereafter Writ Petition was withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal. Appeal was filed by the assessee. The Tribunal has chosen to allow the appeal and the Tribunal h...

K.S. Rajegowda S/O K. Subbappa Vs. the Karnataka Electricity Board Rep ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR4129; 2006(6)KarLJ424

ORDERAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the 4th respondent's order, dt.20-2-2001 (Annex.H) rejecting the petitioner's preliminary objections regarding the jurisdiction of Inquiring Authority.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting certain bribe amounts in June 1997. This resulted in the order suspending the petitioner from services on 5-7-1997. This suspension order was revoked on 16-5-1998. Thereafter he retired from service on 31-3-1999. The 1st respondent-Board in exercise of its power conferring by 14A(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Classification Disciplinary Control and Appeal Regulations, 1987 (hereinafter called 1987 Regulations) ordered domestic enquiry against the petitioner. The enquiry was entrusted to the Hon'ble Upalokayuktha. The Deputy Registrar, by virtue of the powers conferred on him by the Hon'ble Upalokayuktha, issued the articles of charges on 28/3/2000.3....

Divisional Traffic Officer Ksrtc, Mysore Division Vs. K. Ramaiah and o ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ481

ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. The petitioner KSRTC of Mysore Division is challenging the order of the Principal District Judge, Mysore dated 20.9.2002 in Misc. Appeals 12, 13, 16, 17 & 18/1998 reversing the order passed by the competent authority/officer under the provisions of Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974.2. According to the petitioner, shop bearing No. 12, 4, 3, 8 , 1 had been allotted to the respective respondents for carrying on a particular business and that the occupants of the premises have been in unauthorised occupation after expiry of the period of allotment, having no right to carry on the business in the premises by virtue of efflux of time. Further, since these respondents - allottees are claiming as tenants, notices were issued to them determining the tenancy as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act. After determination of the tenancy, petitioner filed a complaint before the 7th respondent who is the competent of...

Krishnappa S/O Govindegowda, Vs. C.V. Veena W/O Shivanna K. and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR3882; 2006(6)KarLJ9

V. Gopala Gowda1. The Appellants and respondents 1 to 5 ore the elected Directors of 8th respondent society in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Co. operative Societies Act and Rules (hereinafter called as the Act and Rules in short) which is managed by its Chief Promoter. Respondents 1 to 5 tendered their resignation to their Managing Committee membership to Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 1-12-2004 as the Chief Executive Officer was not appointed to the society. The said resignation letters had been returned on 24-1-2005 because the A.R.C.S has no jurisdiction to accept the same under Section 29-B of the Act. Thereafter, they submitted the resignation letters on 19-3-2005 to the Chief Promoter, who forwarded them to the A.R.C.S. The same were accepted by the A.R.C.S on 19-4-2005 except the 5th respondent as he withdrew his resignation on 16-4-2005. The same was challenged in W.P.No. 14139/2005. Since the acceptance of resignation letters was withdrawn by th...

Smt. Sharada Vs. the Deputy Commissioner (Food and Civil Supplies),

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ525

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner in this petition has sought for quashing the order dated 24th April 2006 bearing No. FSD.KRL.CR.26/2004-05/253 issued by first respondent vide Annexure B. Further, she has sought to declare that, the Notification dated 12th August 2003 issued by Government of Karnataka in No. FCS.204/DRA/2003 is not applicable to the case where the applications are made seeking grant of licence/authorizationon compassionate grounds. Petitioner has further prayed to direct respondents 1 and 2 to grant kerosene retail dealer licence in favour of petitioner.2. The grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner had earlier filed writ petition in W.P. No. 926/2006 seeking a direction, directing the respondents to consider her representation dated 29th April 2002 produced along with the writ petition. The writ petition filed by petitioner had come up for consideration before this Court on 233rd January 2006. After hearing both sides, the said wri...

Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhuhnwala, Vs. Eastern Roadways Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Man ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007CriLJ482

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. Even though these criminal petitions are listed for admission, with consent, they are taken up for final disposal and all the petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. The facts leading to the filing of these petitions are summarised as follows:Petitioners are accused in several cases filed by the respondent. They are employees of a private limited company which is now under liquidation. Proceedings are initiated at the behest of respondent-2 under Section 200, Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act) thereof against the petitioners who were former Managing Directors and Director of the wound up company, viz., Victory Glass & Industries Limited, alleging commission of offences under Section 142 of the Act. Suffice it to say that there was a delay of 3 days in filing the complaint and that was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay as contemplated under Section 142(b) of the Act. The learned M...

The State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. K.C. Krishnegowda

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ159

ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The respondent herein is an Engineer of Public Works Department. By notification dated 24.2.2004 his services were placed at the disposal of Cauvery Neeravari Nigam Limited. The Managing Director of the said Nigam by Official Memorandum dated 27.2.2004 posted the first respondent as Asst. Executive Engineer, Quality Control Sub-Division in Mysore and he reported there. By Notification dated 30.6.2005 the Water Resources Department of Government of Karnataka transferred him to Harangi Right Bank Canal Sub-Division, Kittur. The same was questioned by the respondent before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 4927/2005. By the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 23.12.2005 the Tribunal allowed the Application, set aside the transfer order and directed to continue the respondent herein in the same post in which he was working prior to his transfer. Questioning the legality and correctness of the same, the State and the Officers of Cauvery Neera...