Karnataka Court September 2006 Judgments

Siddanna Gouda S/O Hanumanta Gouda Thimmanna Goudar Vs. Yallappagouda ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2008)BC110; ILR2007KAR2388; 2006(6)KarLJ648; 2007(4)KCCRSN218; 2006(6)AIRKarR353.

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.NO. 24/1997 before the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Bagalkot.2. The respondent instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 44,250/- with future interest at the rate of 24% par annum from the date of the suit till the data of realization. According to the plaint averments, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 35,000/- from the plaintiff as hand loan on 2.1.1996 by executing a deed and has failed to repay the amount as demanded. Therefore, ha filed the suit for recovery of the money based on the document executed by the defendant.3. The defendant contested the suit denying the execution of the document dated 2.1.1996. According to him, he has not borrowed any money from the plaintiff and the plaintiff by creating a document has filed a suit on false and frivolous grounds. According to him the document relied upon by the plaintiff is a bond and inadmissible in evidence unless and until the duty and penalty as per the provision...

The Karnataka Land Developers Association (R) Rep. by Its Executive Co ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(2)KarLJ57

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. The Karnataka Land Developers Association (R) and its members have approached this Court challenging the notifications dated 14.07.2006 vide Annexures-A and B and 15.07.2006 vide Annexure-C issued by the Commissioner, Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority (for short 'BMRDA') - respondent No. 1.2. By the impugned notifications the 1st respondent has notified that since it has undertaken the task of preparing Interim Master Plan for Anekal, Hoskote, Kanakapura, Magadi and Nelamangala planning areas coming within its jurisdiction, in the interest of ensuring planned development of the region and in aid of preparing the Interim Master Plan the proposals for conversion of the land use and other proposals under Section 10 of the Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') shall be rejected. The petitioners claim that the impugned notifications affect their rights to have their lands converted by approaching the Autho...

Kempaiah and anr. Vs. Javaregowda and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. Petitioners herein are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 145 of 1996 on the file of the Civil Judge at Mandya.2. Respondent 1 is the plaintiff in the suit. Javaregowda filed this suit to declare him as the absolute owner in lawful possession of the suit property and to grant an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After the evidence of Javaregowda, his wife Mariyamma who is the 2nd respondent in this case, filed an application under Order 1, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code requesting the Court to allow her to come on record as an additional plaintiff, on the ground that the whereabouts of Javaregowda are not known to her since 1999 and since the suit property is the joint family property, she has a right to prosecute the case. This application is allowed by the Trial Court and she has been permitted to come on record as additional plaintiff. This order is called in question in t...

State of Karnataka by Police Inspector Anti-dowry Cell, Cod Vs. Modins ...

Court: Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.1. The State has questioned the legality of the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dharwad, acquitting the respondents herein of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:Deceased Rajbi was married to the first respondent Mohidinsab on 21.4.1997 and at the time of her marriage Rs. 1,000/- cash and one thola of gold was given to the accused-husband and thereafter, the harassment began for more dowry and as per the complaint lodged by the mother Smt. Hussainbi (PW2), the deceased was subjected to harassment, particularly by her husband and also by the second respondent mother-in-law and in connection with demand of Rs. 10,000/- the deceased was harassed. The deceased used to inform her mother about this and she even used to tell her that if she goes back without the amount, her life would be in d...

Shri. N. Eswar S/O Narayana Swamy Vs. the Commissioner, Karnataka Hous ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(4)KCCR2708

ORDER Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as a Miscellaneous Coolie from 263.1969 in the pay scale of Rs. 65-95/- at Temporary Work Charge establishment. While working as such, the pay scale of eleven cadres of work charge establishment in the pay scale of Rs. 65-95/- including literate coolies, Head Coolies and Mukdams were re-classified as Junior Work: Inspectors in the pay scale of Rs. 90-200/- as per order dated 20.9.1971. The order however did not include miscellaneous coolies, whose duties and responsibilities are similar to mukdams. Notwithstanding the same, as per the order dated 30.4.1986, the Government absorbed miscellaneous coolies as Junior Work Inspectors in the pay scale of Rs. 90-200/-. This was granted to the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Work Inspector by an order dated 14.8.1986 and he was so absorbed with effect from 1.9.1971. Further, the respondent, by an order dated 27.12.1988, ordered for recovery from the petitioner on the footing that the p...

Big Apple Computers a Proprietary Concern Rep. by Its Proprietrex Mrs. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(112)ECC167; 2006LC167(Karnataka); 2007(207)ELT36(Kar)

1. Assessee is before us in this appeal challenging the order dtd 20-6-2005 passed by the CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore.2. Facts in brief are as under;Appellant imported 2160 pieces of used computer monitors from WRC International, USA at a price of US $ 4 per piece through Inland Container Depot, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad-18 and filed bill of entry declaring a total value of import as Rs. 5,04,569/- at Rs. 233.60 per monitor supported by invoice No. 100901-1 dtd 8-11-2001 of the aforesaid suppliers of goods. The appellant imported the said monitors under the bonafide belief that the second hand computer monitors falls under the definition of capital goods and further are permitted for import freely if they are less than 10 years old, as per the import policy and therefore there was no need for an import licence. However the customs authorities took the view that as per EXIM policy 1997-2002, the second hand goods imported are consumer goods and are restricted items requiring lice...

Tam Tam Pedda Guruva Reddy Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Asses ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Kar)97; [2007]291ITR44(KAR); [2007]291ITR44(Karn)

1. Appellant is a contractor and handles numerous contracts for the Government and others. Some of these contracts were executed in out of the way places where banking facilities are poor. The first year of dispute is 1992-93. The appellant files his return of income for the assessment year 1992-93 in the status of an individual before the first respondent. First respondent passed an assessment order dtd 31-3-1995. Aggrieved by the same, appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner, who in turn gave a partial relief. Thereafter the appellant approached the tribunal. The tribunal also gave a partial relief.2. Appellant is aggrieved in the matter of addition of Rs. 2,87,000/- pertaining to the credit in the name of Sri Rajareddy. He is also aggrieved by the addition of Rs. l,51,869/-. He is further aggrieved by the addition under Section 40A-3 of the Act in terms of the proceedings in the case on hand.3. Appellant filed return of income for the year 1994-95 and assessment ...

Sri Sahasra Lingeshwara Temple, Rep. by Its Managing Trustee Sundaresh ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(1)KarLJ1

R. Gururajan, J.1. Hindu temples/Trustees of temples/arches and others of Karnataka ace before us aggrieved by the Judgment of this Court dated 9.9.2005 passed in W.P. Nos. 31937/2003 and connected matters in these appeals.2. It is unnecessary for us to refer to the facts in each one of the cases. The State Government in terms of the powers conferred on then has chosen to enact a law by name the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and the Rules framed thereunder. The said Act in terms of the statement of objects and reasons was enacted in the light of a longstanding public demand to bring about a uniform law to provide for the regulation of all charitable Endowments and Hindu Religious Institution in the State, which are now regulated under different enactments having local application in different parts of the State. The said Act was brought into force with effect from in terms of the notification. The Act is applicable to Hindu Religious Institu...

Rangappa (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the revision petition is maintainable. On the other side, the Counsel for the respondents, Sri Ramesh submitted that, what was challenged before the Supreme Court was the order passed in the writ appeal. Therefore, the instant review of the Single Judge's order does not survive. I too feel that what was challenged before the Supreme Court was the order passed in the writ appeal. That being the case, in my considered view, this petition for review the order passed by the Single Judge does not survive, for the order passed by the Single Judge had merged in the order passed in the writ appeal. In other words, what the learned Counsel tried to do is, by getting the order passed by me in the writ petition reviewed, to set at nought the order passed by the Division Bench in the writ appeal. Furthermore, the judicial propriety in me does not permit me to get the ...

Mr. Shailendra Alva S/O S. Narayana Alva Vs. Mr. Nagesh S/O T. Somappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(4)KarLJ471; 2008(4)KLJ471; 2007(6)AIRKarR478; AIR2008NOC141; 2008CriLJNOC155

K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. by the appellant-complainant to set aside the order of dismissal dated 14/3/2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore, D.K. by acquitting the respondent for which he has been charge sheeted.2. Assailing the same the appellant-complainant has come up with this appeal mainly on the ground that the judgment and order passed by the Court below is contrary to the provisions of Sections 138, 139, 148 and 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The finding recorded by the trial Court is that the liability of the accused is not proved and appellant-complainant has failed to prove the issuance of the cheque towards the existing legally recoverable debt. But the Court below has overlooked and ignored the presumption prevailing in favour of the holder in due course. In view of the provisions of Section 139 of the Act, the presumption in favour of the complainant who was the holde...