Karnataka Court January 2007 Judgments

M. Munivenkatappa Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The petitioner retired from service as an Executive Engineer with the second respondent Corporation, on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2001.2. The petitioner contends that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner and five others by a notice dated 30.10.2000, on the allegation that certain road repairs were got executed unauthorisedly resulting in a cost overrun and thereby causing loss to the Corporation. The petitioner had denied the charges. However, the third respondent had proceeded to frame common charges against the petitioner and five others and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved. The petitioner was furnished a copy of the enquiry report, to which he had made a representation dated 11.9.2003, pointing out that the enquiry was vitiated for reasons stated therein, and requested that the proceedings be closed and his pensionary benefits be released.3. As there was ...

C.C. Venkatanarasimhaiah S/O. Chikkavenkatarayappa Vs. Asst. Commercia ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007(1)Kar786; 2007(1)KCCR773; 2007(2)AIRKarR329

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed by a person who provides entertainment to his customers through what is known as cable connection to television through which is viewed the programs or who provides dish antenna facilities through which such entertainment can be received and viewed through the television sets which the customers have installed in their residences.2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the demand notices in the two writ petitions while in W.P. No. 15521/2006 the demand dated 18.12.2001, vide Annexure-A, purporting to be under Section 4C of the Karnataka Entertainment Tax Act, 1958, is for a sum of Rs. 29,250/- for the period November 01 to November '02 and in W.P. No. 15522/2006 the demand dated 20.11.2001 vide Annexure-A, purporting to be under Section 4C of the Karnataka Entertainment Tax Act, 1958, is for a sum of Rs. 14,250/- for the period of April 01 to October'01. Under these two notices, the petitioner had been called upon to pay this amo...

Sree Balaji Enterprises Lessees: Bangalore Grape Winery (P) Ltd. by It ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(117)ECC31; 2007LC31(Karnataka); 2007(2)KarLJ372; 2007(4)KCCR2181; 2007(2)AIRKarR588.

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioner is a firm which claims to be a lessee of one M/s. Bangalore Grape Winery [P] Limited and licence holder for manufacture of Indian made liquor in bulk. It appears using the licence, the petitioner manufactures such liquor and marks it under the brand name of products of M/s. Shaw Wallace & Company with whom they have an independent arrangement The activity of manufacturing such liquor attracts liability for payment of duty under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [for short 'the Act'] in terms of the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act. The petitioner is paying such duty on the quantum of liquor so manufactured and issued in the factory premises at No. 13, Green Fields, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore - 560 029.2. The present writ petition is regarding the dispute as to whether the petitioner was liable to pay duty in respect of certain quantum of such liquor which had underwent some process and which according to the re...

Mrs. Mallika and ors. Vs. Mr. Chandrappa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR3216; 2008(1)KarLJ482; 2007(2)KCCR1349; 2007(5)AIRKarR283; AIR2007NOC2236

ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J.1. Both the appeals RFANos. 286/2001 and 386/2001 have been dismissed by judgment dated 10-7-2006. This petition has been filed to review the said judgment on the ground that the said decision has been given in ignorance of binding law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen : [1986]161ITR370(SC) .2. The appeals arose out of a common judgment dated 18-1-2001 passed by the learned XXIV Additional City Civil Judge (CCH-6), Bangalore, in O.S. Nos. 3470/1988 and 3491/1988. The suit O.S. No. 3470/1988 was for a declaration that the suit property i.e., 10 guntas of land in Sy. No. 84/3 A of Cholanayakanahally village, Bangalore North Taluk, was a joint family property in which the plaintiffs had right as co-parceners; and the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 for the sale of different sites therein were not binding on their shares. The plaintiffs prayed also for consequent permanent injunctio...

K Gopal B.A., B.Ed. S/O Kondaiah Asst. Master Navachetana High School, ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. These four petitioners, assailing the correctness of the common order dated 1.3.2005 passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings bearing Nos. 51/2004, 50/2004, 49/2004 and 48/2004 (ED 310:SEW:2004) vide Annexure-D, as the same is illegal and invalid and to allow the respective petitions filed by them with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits, have presented this writ petition.2. The grievance of the of the petitioners as made out by learned Counsel appearing for petitioners in this petition is that, petitioners-1 to 4 were appointed by the first respondent-Management on 26.9.1992, 26.9.1992, 01.10.1991 and 30.9.1991 respectively and they have been prevented from continuing their service as teachers in the first respondent-Management from the academic year 1998-99 onwards. These petitioners have requested the first respondent-Management to pay the arrears of their salaries. The same is neither considered nor accorded sanction for payment of their ...

Nevy D'souza and Ors. Vs. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and Ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(3)KarLJ378; 2007(3)KCCRSN109; 2007(3)AIRKarR474

ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. The petitioner 1 was granted occupancy rights in respect of Sy. Nos. 101/2 and 101/3 of Kukkala Village, Belthangadi Taluk. The first petitioner sold 20 cents of land to 2nd petitioner and another 20 cents of land to the third petitioner in the year 1992. The Assistant Commissioner issued notice that the sale of agricultural land in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents is bad in law. Hence, directed resumption of the land, as it is sold in contravention of the terms of Form 10.2. Petitioners 2 and 3 submit that after purchase they made an application for conversion of non-agricultural purpose and it has been granted. The petitioners have put up residential house after obtaining necessary sanction from the local authority and revenue authorities. The provisions of Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 are amended. 15 years block period is to be now computed from the date of the order of the Tribunal and not the grant of Form 10. In the instant c...

State of Karnataka, by Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta Bangalore ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR1106; 2007(1)Kar1106; 2007(2)KLJ449; 2007(3)KCCRSN187; (2007)2Crimes546

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against the Judgment of acquittal passed by the Court of Special Judge, Bangalore Urban and Rural District, Bangalore City, in special Case No. 138/1999 dated 10/08/2001 wherein the respondent-accused before the trial court has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. The essential facts of the case, leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows:The accused was working as Deputy Tahasildar, Doddamallur. The Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagaram Sub-Division, passed an order in RA. (LKP) : 138/96-97 dated 07/09/1990 directing that the name of the complainant should be entered along with the respondent in the appeal and an application had been given to the Deputy Tahasildar to effect entry as per the order passed the Assistant Commissioner dated 07/09/1998. The application was...

A. Seshappa S/O Somaiah Major, Junior Engineer (L) Vs. the Management ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 17th January 2001 bearing No. SEE/MNG/SPA/DE/8258-63 passed by third respondent - Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure G and order dated 31st August 2001 bearing No. -Appeal/10521- 23 passed by second respondent - Appellate Authority vide Annexure J, has presented the instant writ petition on the ground that, the said orders are totally unjust and arbitrary, apart from being violative of Rules of natural justice. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents to exonerate the petitioner of all the charges and further direct the respondents to extend all monetary benefits by treating the entire period of suspension being undergone by the petitioner as on duty.2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner is a Diploma holder in Electrical Engineering. He joined the service in the then erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board in the ye...

Smt. Guruvamma W/O Late Annegowda Vs. State of Karnataka Represented b ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ26; 2007(4)KCCRSN248; 2007(3)AIRKarR99

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person whose husband was a participant in an auction conducted under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [for short 'the Act'] read with the Karnataka Excise [Lease of rights of retail vend of liquor] Rules, 1969 [for short 'Lease Rules']. The State had invited bids and offers from the intending persons to offer their bid for such rights in respect of Mandya Taluk and Pandavapura Taluk in Mandya District. The husband of the petitioner having unfortunately died before he could reap the fruits of his successful bidding for these two Taluks by offering a monthly rent of Rs. 68,00,100/- in Mandya Taluk and a sum of Rs. 26,00,000/- in Pandavapura Taluk and the right to vending liquor which he had obtained having not been retained by the petitioner though there was an offer by the authorities under the Act that the petitioner could continue the right by exercising the option or willingness to be indicated within a stipulated tim...

Smt. Farida Wife of Istiaq Ahmed Vs. Ajai Kumar Singh, Commissioner of ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ569; 2007(2)KCCR1377; 2007(2)AIRKarR292(DB)

ORDERWP (HC) No. 64 of 20061. Petitioner Chandrahas in WP (HC) No. 64 of 2006 is seeking a writ in the nature of declaration declaring the detention of one Narasimha son of Rangappa by order dated 3.6.2006 in No. Mag(1)CR/58/2005-06 passed by the District Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District and the order of detention in Kannada dated 3.6.2006 bearing No. Mag(1)CR/2005-06 as illegal and void ab initio.2. Petitioner Chandrahas is the brother of Narasimha son of Rangappa, the detenu. Detenu is detained in Central Prison, Gulbarga pursuant to an order of detention purported to have been passed by the District Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (for short, 'Goondas Act'). Order of detention issued in Kannada is filed at Annexure-B to the petition. According to the petitioner, g...