Karnataka Court September 2006 Judgments

Nadaf Traders, Rep. by Its Proprietor Sri I.F. Nadaf Garag Vs. the Sta ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. M/s. Nadaf Traders of Dharwad is before us in this revision petition.2. It is seen from the averments in the revision petition that the petitioner is a dealer covered by the Sales Tax laws of Karnataka. The petitioner filed the annual return of turnover for the assessment year 2000-2001, disclosing total and taxable turnover at Rs. 15,78,664/- and Rs. 13,90,879.85. He claimed exemption from levy of tax on a turnover of Rs. 1,87,784.15/-. The petitioner avers that he has maintained regular books of accounts and all his turnovers are reflected in the books of accounts. The intelligence wing of the department inspected the premises of the petitioner and thereafter, they noticed some irregularities in the matter. They submitted a report to the department. Based on the report, proceedings were initiated and the Assessing Officer has chosen to pass an assessment order on the basis of best judgment assessment in the case on hand. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed unsuccessful...

M.B. Ramachandran and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. This revision is against the order of dismissal of the application filed by the petitioners for discharge. The petitioners were charge-sheeted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, J.C. Nagar Sub-Division, Bangalore for the offence punishable Under Section 3, Clause (10) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.2. On two grounds they sought for discharge. Firstly, it was urged that the prosecuting agency cannot directly submit charge-sheet to the Special Court as a Special Court being the Sessions Court cannot try a case without there being an order of Committal. Secondly, it is submitted that as per Rule 7 of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, any alleged offence has to be invastigated by the officer not below the cadre of Dy.S.P. rank who is specially authorised by the State Government.3. The Special Judge after having heard the matter regarding discharge referred to the decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners in Gangula Ashok and A...

Parushuramappa Tulajappa Daddiyavar, Major, Agriculturist Vs. State of ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERV. Jagannathan, J.1. The Tahasildar, Mundagod, by his order dated 24.10.1998, fixed the premium payable in respect of the lands granted to the petitioner's father at Rs. 11,089.50 and interest at Rs. 9,498.50 was added to the said amount and thus quantified the amount payable in respect of 3 acres 2 guntas in S.No. 72 and 4 acres 16 guntas in S.No. 73 of Mudasali Village, Mundagod Taluk. The said order was questioned before R-2 Assistant Commissioner, who, in turn, confirmed the order passed by the Tahasildar and it is the grievance of the petitioner herein that both the orders viz., one passed by the Tahasildar as per Annexure-A and the other passed by the Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-B, are illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 8 as well as Section 53 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for the State and perused the material placed.3. It is the contention of the p...

Stovekraft Private Limited, Rep. by Its Managing Director Rajendra Gan ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(214)ELT179(Kar)

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Heard Sri Kiran S. Javali, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Aravind Kumar, learned Asst.Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.2. Though the petitioner has prayed for five reliefs, during the course of hearing, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has restricted his arguments only for the first prayer, which reads thus:Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to return all the goods and records seized from the business premises on 14.7.2005 and 20.1.2006 under the Mahazar in proceedings No. S/IV/14/05 (Annexure - A & E). Thus, the petitioner has not pressed for other reliefs.3. The records disclose that the business premises of the petitioner, which is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, was searched by the officers of department of Revenue Intelligence, and in the said process, the officers have seized certain documents, files, hard d...

The Gulbarga Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. R/by Its Assistant Executive ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ286

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner in this petition is an Electricity Supply Company Limited represented by its Assistant Executive Engineer. It has questioned the legality and validity of the order dated 09.06.2004 on I.A.I in complaint No. 22/2004 vide Annexure 'E' on the file of the second respondent herein. Further, it has sought for a writ of prohibition preventing the second respondent from taking any further proceedings in complaint No. 22/04 and/or pursuant to the order dated 09.06.04 passed on I.A.I in complaint No. 22/04 on the file of the second respondent.2. The grievance of the petitioner-Company in the instant writ petition is that, the first respondent herein had filed a complaint before the second respondent under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (hereinafter called as 'Act' for short) seeking a direction to give power connection and to quash the back-billing charges of Rs. 18,018/- and compounding fee of Rs. 3,000/- and to pay the damages of Rs. 25,00...

State by C.P.i. Hosadurga Vs. Prabhu S/O Doddaiah @ Boddaiah and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007CriLJ580; 2007(2)KarLJ91; ILR2007(1)Kar670; 2006(6)AIRKarR370

V. Jagannathan, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the common judgment rendered by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chitradurga and therefore they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts in brief giving rise to these three appeals are as follows:On 30.9.1993 at about 230 p.m. in front of the house of C.W.19, CWs 5,10 and 12 there was a talk regarding the exhumation and burning of the dead body of one Nethramma, wife of accused No. 3-Shivappa. This was because of the fact that the deceased Nethramma had died just after delivering the child, At that time, accused persons opposed the body being exhumed and burnt. In this regard, a galata took place and the accused No. 1 Prabhu and accused No. 2 Jayappa said to have assaulted the complainant group inasmuch as the accused No. 1 Prabhu assaulted on the head of one Shivamurthy and accused No. 2 assaulted other persons of complainant group. Following the assault with stone MO-1 by accused No. 1 Shivamurthy sustained la...

The State of Karnataka by Lokayuktha Vs. A.V. Sathish, Forester Agraha ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR559; 2007(4)KarLJ138; 2007(1)KCCR725; 2007(2)AIRKarR269

K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Principal District 4 Sessions Judge, Chikmagalore in Special Case No. 1/1995 whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charges levelled against respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. The main grounds urged by the appellant-State is that the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is erroneous and the reasons assigned are untenable. The special Judge has also erred in not properly considering the evidence of PW. 1 complainant, PW. 3 shadow witness, PW. 2 another trap witness. Though the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 prove that there was demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs. 4000/- by the respondent-accused and the amount was recovered from the respondent, the trial court has not properly appreciated the said evidence as the witnesses turned hostile. There is no bar to believe and accept th...

Bargur Allabakshi Sab S/O Kasimsab Vs. Gudagunti Patel Hussainsab S/O ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007(2)Kar2196; 2007(2)KarLJ670;

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. Though the respondents are served, they are unrepresented.2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner.3. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. NO. 199/01 on the file of the civil judge(Jr.Dn), Gangavathi. He has filed the above suit against the respondents for recovery of Rs. 1,82,800/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of purchase till the date of realisation with costs. According to the plaint averments, plaintiff is an agriculturist and the defendant No. 1 is carrying on business as Trader of a concern known as 'M/s. Noor Trading Company, Gangavathi, who is also a commission agent. The petitioner is a farmer. He had taken his paddy to sell the same in the market. The same has been purchased by the defendants on 1.1,2001 and on 7.2.2001 at the rate of Rs. 450/-and Rs. 460/- per quintal worth Rs. 1,82,731/-. In the APMC Yard , the waighman weighed the agricultural produce of the petitioner and the same was delivered to the 1st defendant. Annexure...

Abhimanyu S/O Ramachandrappa Phalke Vs. Sri Ram Investment Ltd., Throu ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ521

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2005 in MA 22/03 on the file of the learned III Additional. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Gulbarga, confirming the order dated 31.3.2003 on I.A. No. IV in O.S. 452/02 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) presented the instant memorandum of Civil Revision Petition.2. The grievance made out by the petitioner is that he has filed a suit for perpetual induction against the respondent/defendant before the Trial Court claiming that he is the absolute owner of lorry bearing registration No. KA-32-A-5141 and he availed the loan facility from the respondent/defendant for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, which is re-payable in 36 installments as per the agreement. He is regularly making the repayment as per the installment, it is shock and surprising to the petitioner/plaintiff, when the respondent/defendant illegally seized the vehicle and subsequently came to know that the defendant is likely to dispose of the vehicle. The...

Shankarappa S/O Chennappa Ullegaddi and Shivappa S/O Venkappa Kodli Vs ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR4303

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. An interesting question fells for consideration in this case. The background facts are as under:2. The 3rd respondent-Cabby Grama Panchayat has 20 members out of which 10 are to be elected from Chabbi village and the remaining 10 to be elected from Sherewadi village. General election for the Grama Panchayat were held on 27.02.2005. The two petitioners herein along with 8 others were duty elected from Sherewadi village. The Election Officer issued a declaration in this regard on 01.03.2005. However, as regards the 10 contestants from Chabbi village, as the entire village boycotted the election, the elections could not be held. As election for the remaining 10 seats was not held, the petitioners made a representation to the Taluk Panchayat, Hubli and to the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, requesting them to conduct elections for the remaining 10 seats of Chabbi village. The Deputy Commissioner forwarded the request of the petitioners to the State Election Commission.3...