Karnataka Court January 2007 Judgments

K.B. Bandekar S/O Bhikaji Bandekar Vs. the Principal Chief Conservator ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR2611; 2007(6)KarLJ282; 2007(4)KCCRSN230; 2007(5)AIRKarR222(DB)

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The petitioner is a Range Forest Officer in the Forest Department of the Government of Karnataka. While he was working as Range Forest Officer at Raibag in Belgaum District, he was transferred to the Works Project at Shimoga vide Annexure-A1 order dated 15.05.2006. Claiming that the petitioner is due to retire within a period of less than two years, he submitted Anniexure-A2 representation dated 15.06.2006 requesting that he may be retained at Raibag. He also filed Application No. 4251 of 2006 in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal questioning Annexure-A1 order of transfer. But the Tribunal disposed of the said application with a direction to the Cadre Management Authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 15.06.2006. In compliance with the direction of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, the Cadre Management Authority considered the matter and decided to post the petitioner to a vacant post in the Works Project at Belgaum vide ...

Jayamma Vs. Lingamma

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(3)KarLJ178; 2007(3)KCCR1855; 2007(3)AIRKarR493

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the complainant is dh'eeted against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court of XVI Additional CMM, Bangalore in C.C. No. 34936 of 1999, dated 3-12-2001 acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. The essential facts leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows.The complainant-appellant herein filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, before the XVI Additional CMM, Bangalore averring that the accused-respondent had taken a loan of Rs. 60,000/- i.e., Rs. 10,000/- at the first instance and subsequently Rs. 50,000/- during 1998 for the purpose of running Garment Factory near Sunkadakatte Main Road by promising that she would pay the said sum within 2 to 3 months. When the complainant demanded repayment of the said sum, the respondent issued two cheques for Rs. 10,000/- in the first instance ...

income Tax Officer and ors. Vs. Raj and Raj Investments

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Kar)203; [2007]293ITR66(KAR); [2007]293ITR66(Karn)

V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The appellants are IT authorities. On the basis of the authorisation issued by the Jt. CIT Range-II, the first appellant surveyed the premises of the respondent and voluminous documents, books of account and other incriminating material had been impounded. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed a writ petition and the learned single Judge quashed the authorisation, impounding order and all other actions of the appellants and imposed cost of Rs. 5,000 on the appellants. The impounded documents have been directed to be returned to the respondent by retaining the copies thereof authenticated by the respondent. Liberty was also given to the appellants to take action in accordance with law. In this appeal the appellants have challenged the said order of the learned single Judge.2. Mr. K.V. Aravind, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside as otherwise public interest would be affected....

State of Karnataka by Cpi Vs. Durgappa S/O Shivanna Kivadi

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007(4)Kar4938; 2007(3)KarLJ410; 2007(3)AIRKarR481(DB)

1. The case of the prosecution as brought on record through the witnesses before trial Court in brief is as under:The respondent/accused by name Durgappa of Gajaldinni village, Deodurga taluk, Raichur District, was tried for offences punishable under sections 376 and 323 IPC. Consequently, he was acquitted of the charges by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same the State has come up in this appeal questioning the Judgment of acquittal of the respondent / accused.The complainant victim in this case is from Gajaldinni village and her husband is Mr. Shivanna P.W.2. Accused is also from the same village. Victim and accused knew each other. The families of both the victim and the accused have landed property at Gajaldinni village situate within the vicinity of each other.On 1.2.1999 victim was working alone in her lands as it was post harvest season and her husband had gone to Jalahalli shandy for purchasing provisions. At about 4 p.m. while she was picking groundnuts, the accused said to ...

Khoday India Limited Reptd. by Its Vice-president Sri K. Srikishan, Vi ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(3)KarLJ162; 2007(4)KCCR2215; 2007(3)AIRKarR1

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioner, a limited company, is a holder of licence to run, establish and function a distillery in terms of the Rule 3 of the Karnataka Excise (Distillery and Warehouse) Rules, 1967. Under the licence, the petitioner is permitted to manufacture potable alcohol using rectified spirit or alcohol. Petitioner pays duty on the alcohol beverages that the petitioner manufactures from out of the rectified spirit that is used for such purpose. The duty is levied and paid in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [for short, the Act] read with the Karnataka Excise (Excise Duties and Fees) Rules, 1968.2. For the purpose of producing the potable liquor which the petitioner manufactures under different brand names and which is produced directly from the rectified spirit by such spirit is fed into wooden casks for maturation, thereafter by giving such treatment as individual manufacturers have developed and depending upon the nature of such t...

Shanta W/O Shankarappa Benni and Chanabasappa S/O Shankarappa Benni Vs ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(3)KarLJ3612007(1)KCCR780; 2007(2)AIRKarR582(DB).

1. The appellants are the owners of a plot measuring 140 x 99 feet It is about 12 guntas in Sy. No. 14/1/2 of Lakmanahalli in Dharwad District. It is a remaining portion after the Government taken over the excess portion under the repealed Urban Land (Celling & Regulations) Act The said left-over land was acquired for Karnataka Housing Board for construction of houses. Preliminary Notification was dated 20-3-1989 and Final Notification was dated 18-11-1989. Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 8-5-1992. Compensation awarded was Rs. 25,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the Appellants sought reference under Section 18(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension and Amendment) Act of 1961 (hereinafter called as 'L.A Act' in short) for higher compensation by determining the market value of the land. The reference Court passed a common judgment and award dated 28-1-2002 in L.A.C. Nos. 267 & 268/93 re-determining the market value at Rs. 2,80,000/...

Bajirao Vs. State by Ramdurg Police

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3176; 2007(4)KarLJ527; ILR2007(2)Kar1875; 2007(3)KCCR1567; 2007(3)AIRKarR567.

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by accused 1 in Sessions Case No. 87 of 1996 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum, is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15-9-2001, wherein accused 1-appellant herein is found guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC, and further sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.2. The essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows.--It is the case of the prosecution that the sister of the complainant Geetha was married to accused 1 and his another sister Saraswathi-P.W. 15 was married to accused 2 who is the brother of accused 1. Accused 3 and 4 are the father and mother of ac...

K. Sathya Murthy Vs. the Secretary Ministry for Industry and Commerce ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ686; 2007(4)KCCRSN260; 2007(3)AIRKarR40.

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. In response to the order and direction dated 3-11-2006 passed/issued by this Court calling upon the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent No. 1 - Government of India to respond to the article capuoned 'Medicines out of commoners reach' published hi Deccan Herald, English News Daily dated 13-7-2006, Sri. Aravind Kumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General on instructions submits that the proposal for possible amendment to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1949 (for short the Act'] has not been carried out; that the Act has not been amended so far as was apprehended in the article; that, in fact, in the light of considerable resistance from the various departments of the Government, as indicated in the very article, the meeting itself had not taken place and therefore no decision of the Government was taken for the purpose of amending the Act on the lines indicated in the article.2. Sri. Muralidharan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 s...

Bajirao S/O Hanumantarao Shiledar Vs. State of Karnataka by Ramdurg Po ...

Court: Karnataka

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by accused No. 1 in Sessions Case. No. 87/96 on the file of Prl.Sessions Judge, Belgaum, is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.9.2001 wherein accused No. 1-appellant herein is found guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 IPC., and sentenced to undergo RI for two years for the offence punishable, under Section 498-A IPC., and further sentencing him to undergo RI for four years for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.,2. The essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial court are as follows:It is the case of the prosecution that the sister of the Complainant Geethawas married to accused No. 1 and his another sister Saraswathi PW-15 was married to accused No. 2 who is the brother of accused No. 1. Accused 3 and 4 are the father and mother of accused No. 1, Accused No. 5 is the sister of accused No. 1 and accused No...

The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Vigilance) Vs. Hindustan ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)10VST330(Karn); 2007(4)KCCRSN253; 2007(3)AIRKarR29; 2007-08(5)VATToday33(DB)

ORDER1. State of Karnataka is before us aggrieved by the orders passed in STA Nos. 279/1999, 280/1999, 323, 444, 497 and 498/2001 and 296/2003 dated 27.12.2003 in this revision petition.2. Facts as narrated in the revision petition are as under:Respondent is a Company registered under the Companies Act. It is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Acts'). Respondent was earlier known as Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited (Lipton Division) and was amalgamated with the respondent Company w.e.f. 21.3.1997. Respondent has established a new industrial unit engaged in the production of blended packed teas at Dharwad since 8.9.1992 and 6.5.1993 respectively. Respondent availed sales tax exemption benefit for a period of six years from the date of commencement of commercial production in terms of the scheme evolved by the Government vide Government Order dated 27.9.1990 and sales tax exemption Notification dated 19.6.1991. 3. The Assistant...