Karnataka Court August 2006 Judgments

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Jayanagar Branch, Through Its Re ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007ACJ702; 2006(6)KarLJ664

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition is by an Insurance Company, who was a party to a claim application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the file of Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City.2. The Claim application of an injured in the accident involving a motor vehicle covered by a policy issued by the petitioner -- Insurance Company came to be allowed in terms of the award dated 18.5.2005 passed in MVC 4527/2005.3. It appears the petitioner-company had taken the defence that the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle as the owner who had taken out the policy had committed certain breaches of the conditions of the policy.4. Be that as it may, the Tribunal observing that in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court it was open to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner as indicated in the judgment of the Supreme Court and proceeded to pass the award.5. The claimants proceeded to execution of the award by filing Exec...

The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tulsyan Nec Limited

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(207)ELT209(Kar)

1. Revenue is before us in this appeal. A fire accident has occurred in the factory premises of M/s.Tulsyan NEC Ltd., Doddaballapur. Several inputs were destroyed. It was stated that the respondent irregularly availed CENVAT credit on certain inputs, which were not received back from job work, the actual CENVAT credit attributable were not correctly arrived at and thereafter not adjusted the differential amount. It was further stated that irregularly, the respondent availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 4,02,497/- on inputs and not fully accounted for as having been disposed off in the manner specified in the said rules. It was stated that an application was filed before the Insurance authority seeking settlement of claim in the matter. A show cause notice was issued demanding duty and also imposing penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. It was also stated that the assessee was liable to reverse the credit availed under Rule 57F(11) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The said Show...

Official Liquidator of Dunford Fabrics Ltd. Vs. G.C. Lohia

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2008]81SCL431(Kar)

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This application has been filed by the Official Liquidator under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking for recovery of Rs. 1,31,96,186 from respondent Nos. 1 to 5 jointly and severally averring that as per the statement of affairs and the entry in the balance-sheet the relevant entry shown as the debts outstanding for a period of six months amounting to Rs. 31,03,400, considered doubtful Rs. 1,50,903, other debts Rs. 69,44,377 total Rs. 1,01,98,680 and advances recoverable in cash or in kind or for value to be received Rs. 29,89,917 and cash and bank balances : cash balance on hand Rs. 2,346 and bank balance Rs. 5,243 total Rs. 1,31,96,186.It is averred that no statement of affairs has been filed and the respondents have not taken steps for recovery of the abovesaid amount and the respondents are guilty of misfeasance and are liable to pay the amount as sought for in the application.Objections have been filed stating that the assets of the company were tak...

The State of Karnataka by Kakati Police Station Vs. Parashram Kallappa ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007CriLJ479

1. The main grievance of the State, against the order of acquittal passed by the learned JMFC, Belgaum, is that the trial court while acquitting respondents No. 1 and 2, committed an error in so far as the offence is concerned and instead of convicting them for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, the trial court had convicted them under Section 324 of IPC and further releasing the two accused persons under the Probation of Offenders Act is also erroneous in law.2. We have heard learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri P.M. Nawaz, appearing for the State as well as learned Amicus Curiae, Sri Sharanappa Mattur, appearing for the respondents.3. Since the area of controversy is within a narrow compass with regard to the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC instead of Section 326 of IPC, we deem it proper to discuss only this aspect of the matter since the respondents have been convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC...

Jubedabi D/O Basheer Sab Sanadi Vs. Abdul Jabbar Abdul Karim Mul

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ606; ILR2007(1)KarSN12; 2007(1)KCCR630; 2007(1)AIRKarR510

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order of dismissal of the Criminal Revision No. 549/2001 passed by the Presiding Officer and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track-IV, Belgaum.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent Initially, she had tiled an application under Section 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short the 'Act'), with a prayer that she is entitled to recover Rs. 30,000/- from the respondent and also reasonable amount and fair provision and maintenance and also entitled for grant of marriage expenses and Dahej. So, after considering the materials placed on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion in allowing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the Act, directing the respondent to return the Mehar amount of Rs. 551/- and further it was directed to pay a reasonable and fair provision ...

Bhavani Housing Co-operative Society Limited (R) Vs. Bangalore Develop ...

Court: Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J.1. In these intra-Court appeals, the appellant in WA No. 3697/2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the society' for the sake of convenience), who was the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 35078/03 has challenged the order dated 4.10.2005 passed by the learned single Judge in its entirety. The appellant in WA No. 3759/05 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trust' for the sake of convenience) was arrayed as the second respondent in the said writ petition. The Trust has challenged the order passed in W.P.No. 35078/2003 only to the extent of the learned single Judge quashing the decision of the Bangalore Development Authority dated 3.10.2002 to execute the lease deed in favour of the Trust.2. The Society was before the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition calling in question the decision dated 3.10.2002 by which the BDA decided to execute a lease agreement in favour of the Trust in respect of the civic amenity site situate in the Housing Layout formed by the society. In t...

Cce Vs. Press Fab Precision Components Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(207)ELT207(Kar)

1. Revenue is before us aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 2-8-2005 passed in Appeal No. E/79 & 80/2003 in the case on hand.2. The facts in brief are as under:The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of pressed components and are covered by the Central Excise Laws. The Revenue visited the unit of the respondents and noticed certain irregularities in the matter of payment of duty. Hence, notice was issued mad a reply was obtained. Thereafter, an adverse order was passed against the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed before the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner decided the case against the respondent. The respondent, aggrieved by the same, filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has accepted the case of the assessee. It is in these circumstances, revenue is before us.3. Heard Sri N.R. Bhaskar, learned standing Counsel for the Revenue and perused the materials placed on record.4. After hearing, we are of the view that ...

Sri Vasanthkumar D. Shah S/o D.L. Shah, Prop. Children's Paradiese Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(2)KarLJ1; 2006(4)KCCR254; 2006(6)AIRKarR308

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. Common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision making in all these petitions, hence with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petitions arc clubbed, heard together and arc disposed of by this common order.2. Facts in brief:I CRP 170/2006:The petitioner on 8.6.1967 and 24.6.1968 was inducted as a tenant of shop premises No. 217/D and 217/C, 27th cross, 8 'F' mam, 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-11, respectively, under the respondent-landlord, who issued a notice dated 17.6.2002 determining the tenancy w.e.f. 31.7.2002 to which the petitioner caused a reply dated 23.7.2002. The landlord on 18.12.2002 instituted SC 2078/2002 before the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, for ejectment, which was opposed by filing a written statement of the petitioner inter alia contending that the two tenancies being separate and distinct, on two dates, arc protected by the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and that there is a waiver of notice t...

Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Jindal Vijaya Nagar Steel Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

1. Revenue is before us aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in the case on hand.2. The facts in brief are as under :The respondent availed warehouse facilities under Chapter IX of the Customs Act, 1962 'Act' for short). Interest is chargeable under Section 61(2) of the Act in terms of the Act. A show cause notice was issued by the department on 11-12-2000 proposing to recover interest under Section 28 of the Act and also to impose penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 61 of the Act. Thereafter, interest was demanded and penalty was imposed. The same was challenged unsuccessfully in an appeal by the assessee. Thereafter, the matter was taken up before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing, has chosen to accept the case of the assessee. It is in these circumstances, revenue is before us.3. Heard Sri Bhaskar, learned Counsel for the appellant. We have carefully perused the material on record.4. The Tribunal, after noticing the material facts, has chosen to ho...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Stelfast Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

1. Revenue is before us aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 19-10-2005 passed in Appeal No. 30/2004 on the following facts :The respondent is a holder of custom licence issued under Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent is a manufacturer of Lapping mandrels, valve Guiders, Pins, etc. It imports duty free capital goods, spares and raw materials by availing exemption in terms of the notification dated 9-2-1981. The respondent was permitted to set up 100% EOU by the Department of Industrial Development. The respondent imported capital goods and raw materials valued at Rs. 8,83,736/- during the period April 1993 to April 1994 and claimed exemption in terms of the Notification 13/81. The respondent availed exemption from Customs duty. Thereafter, according to the department, the respondent did not fulfil the conditions. Hence, a show cause notice was issued on 19-5-1999. In the show cause notice, apart from duties, interest was demanded. Reply was sent to by the asses...