Karnataka Court October 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
D. Veeranna Vs. the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mad ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ126; ILR2007(4)Kar5003
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. In the instant case, petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned order passed in Surcharge Case No. 22/92-93, dated 29th August, 1998 passed by first respondent and the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 517 of 1998, dated 13th March, 2001, marked as Annexure-E and F, respectively. Further, petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner for the remaining unpaid period.2. The grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner joined as 'Secretary' of the Halenahalli Service Co-operative Society Limited, Sira Taluk during 1973. In the year 1976, the said Halenahalli Service Co-operative Society Limited came to be amalgamated with the second respondent-Chikkanahalli Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha under the Re-organization Scheme and on amalgamation of both the above said Societies, a new Society under the name and st...
The State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Chief Secy., Vs. Smt. H.J. Shakunth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-25-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ79; ILR2007(4)Kar5106;
V. Jagannathan, J.1. The appellants were the defendants before the trial court in O.S.No. 84/1994 find being aggrieved by the trial court allowing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for declaration and injunction, the present appeal is filed.2. The brief facts of the case are to the effect that the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit in question seeking the aforesaid relief by contending that the suit property bearing R.S.No. 391 measuring 7 acre 23 guntas of Avanagere village was purchased by the plaintiff's husband by name Jayanna under a registered sale deed dated 28.9.1970 from its previous owner and since the said date, the suit property is being enjoyed by the respondent-plaintiff following the death of her husband. The 4th defendant before the trial court viz., Tahsildar passed an order in RRPT No. 105/82-83 changing the survey number from 391 to 390/1p and the extent as 6 acres 13 guntas instead of 7 acres 23 guntas. It is the case of the plaintiff that while effecting ...
Dr. Shivanand S/O Nanjundappa Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented b ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-25-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)KarLJ426; 2008(1)AIRKarR285
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. In the instant case, petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the impugned Notification dated 22nd February 2007 bearing No. Aa.Ku.Ka.67.PTD.07 vide Annexure A and the insertion Notification of even number and even date vide Annexure B as the same are illegal, void and inoperative. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of petitioner and to appoint him as Director of the fourth respondent - institute as per Government Notification dated 29th November 2006 bearing No. IGICH/DRC/2/2006-07, in the interest of justice and equity.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, pursuant to the Notification issued by the Director of Medical Education, Member secretary, Selection Committee, Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health dated 29th November 2006, bearing No. IGICH/DRC/2/2006-07 vide Annexure G, petitioner, being fully quali...
Vysya Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Ms. G. Keerthana and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-25-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Kant25; 2008(2)KarLJ380
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, by the second defendant in O.S. No. 82 of 2006, on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Tumkur, which is a suit for partition filed by the respondents 1 and 2, minors represented by their mother as guardian and next friend, impleading the third respondent-father as first defendant and the petitioner-Bank as the second defendant, wherein the trial Court has answered a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court raised at the instance of the petitioner, in terms of the order dated 5-4-2007 holding that the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit, is for setting aside this order in this revision petition.2. It appears, the petitioner-Bank had taken the defence that the suit itself is not tenable in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the ...
Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Jindal Vijayanagar Stee ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(123)ECC355; 2007(149)LC355(Karnataka); 2008(222)ELT35(Kar)
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of parties the appeal is taken up for final hearing.2. The short and important question that arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal is the actual date to be reckoned for the purpose of calculation of interest leviable under Section 61 of the Customs Act 1962. The respondent M/s Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Ltd., Bellary is manufacturing steel falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. Certain goods were imported and enter the territory of India at Chennai Port. Under the supervision of the appellant, the goods were transported to Toraunagallu where warehouse is situated and from the warehouse the respondent has to clear the goods.3. The respondent has paid the duty payable on the warehouse goods under Section 61 of the Act. The appellant levied the interest on the ground that the goods were cleared beyond the period prescribed under Section 61(1) of the Customs Act 1962. The responde...
Sri Veerayya Mahantayya Koppad, Vs. Smt. Geetha W/O Gangadhar Hiremath ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR1773; 2008(2)KarLJ317; 2008(2)KCCR619; 2008(1)AIRKarR551; 2008(4)CivilLJ433; 2008(2)ICC65; 2008AIHC1407(Kar)
V. Jagannathan, J.1. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs before the trial court in O.S.No. 101/1996 and the said suit filed by them for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule properties came to be dismissed by the trial court and hence this first appeal by them.2. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial court can be indicated first by referring to the genealogical table which the plaintiffs themselves have described in their plaint and the said table is as under:Sangavva Somayya Shiddayya Sattigeri Shanthabai(Died in 1938-39) (Died in 1968) (Died in 1990)|________________|_________________________| |Muktha Geetha Kom Gangadhara(Died in 1964) Hiremath (Defendant-1)|__________________________________________________| | | |Vewayya Smt. Gurudevi Smt. Akkamahadevi BasavarajMahantayya Kom Shiva- Kom Shanthayya MahanthayyaKoppada putrayya Hiremath Suragimath Koppada(Plft-1) (Plft-3) (Plft-4) (Plft-2)3. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the...
The Commissioner of Income Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Kar)471; [2008]301ITR66(KAR); [2008]301ITR66(Karn)
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA 748/Bang/95 dated 29.6.2001 wherein the tribunal has confirmed the orders of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals-II), Bangalore dated 31.3.1995 in Appeal No. ITA. 16/dcsr-5/cit(a)-ii/93-94. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax ((Assessments), Special Range-V, Bangalore, issued a show cause notice to the assessee under Section 274 R/w Section 271 of the Income Tax Act calling upon the assessee why penalty on assessee should not be levied under Section 271(I)(c) of the Income-Tax Act. Though notice was served, assessee did not send any response. Again one more show cause notice was issued for which also there was no response. Thereafter, a personal hearing was given for more than 7 times. Chartered accountant of the assesses appeared before the Deputy Commissioner requested time to file details in respect of the notice issued. On 3.9.1992 Chartered...
Rudrappa and anr. Vs. Basawaraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: ILR2007(4)KAR4720; 2008(2)KarLJ505;
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 18-12-2006 passed on preliminary issue No 4 in OS No 11 of 2005, on the file of Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr Dn), Chincholi.2. The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is for award of damages to the tune of Rs 15,000/- as against the petitioners herein, who happen to be the secretary and the president respectively of the Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha, Sulepeth, Chincholi taluk, wherein the respondent is working as attender.3. It appears, the suit is filed on the premise that the petitioners have come in the way of the respondent-employee getting his due and proper salary; that it is because of the inaction or mischievous action on the part of the petitioners herein the respondent-plaintiff is deprived of his rightful enhanced salary.4. Petitioners had entered appearance in the suit and have filed their written statement and raised a pre...
Chikkamanchaiah S/O Venkataiah Vs. H. Honnalagaiah S/O Late Alage Gowd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ119; ILR2007(4)Kar4986;
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. HRRP. No. 220/2007 is filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Small Causes Court under Section 45 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), whereas HRRP. 297/2007 is filed against the final order passed under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Act directing the eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule property. Therefore, they are taken up fox consideration together and disposed of by this common order.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original HRC. No. 611/2004.3. The subject matter of this eviction proceedings is a residential premises bearing No. 96/115 situate at Bhuvaneshwari Colony, Hoysala Road, ward NO. 52, Hanmanthanagar, Bangalore-90. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner in peaceful possession of the scheduled property which was allotted to him by the Bangalore City Corporation on 19.11.1991. Thereafter, he pu...
R.N. Shetty and Company Vs. National Highway Authority of India and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ30; 2008(1)AIRKarR213
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioner claims to be a contractor who is executing certain works in favour of M/s. National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as 'NHAI') in terms of a contract dated 28-2-2002 (copy at Annexure-F).2. Petitioner claims to be aggrieved by certain decisions of the employer-NHAI who it appears have communicated their view that in respect of payments made to the contractors deduction of an amount at the rate of 1% is to be effected towards the welfare cess payable under the Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and for this purpose addressed a communication dated 8-8-2007 to the Team Leader, M/s. Roughton International Consulting Engineers Group Limited, Hubli (copy at Annexure-A) which according to the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the Act, rules and various notifications issued for the purpose of the Act and there...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »