Karnataka Court February 2007 Judgments

Chaitra Fertilizers and Chemicals Private Limited Represented by Its M ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2007Kant72; 2007(4)KarLJ66

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The facts in brief leading upto this appeal are as follows:M/s Metallic Soaps & Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. (herein after called 'the Company' for brevity), a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (herein after called 'the Companies Act' for brevity), had obtained a loan from M/s Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Mysore (herein after called 'KSFC' for brevity), a statutory corporation under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (herein after 'SFC Act' for brevity), on the security of its assets by the execution of the mortgage and the hypothecation deeds. It transpires that the said Company having defaulted in repayment of the loan, KSFC had taken possession of the assets of the Company in terms of Section 29 of the SFC Act, as on 25.4.1992. The assets of the company were brought to sale by auction and ultimately were agreed to be sold to the Appellant herein for a sale price of...

General Manager, Bsnl Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009[16]STR262

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having considered the averments in the Writ Petition, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Annexure-'A' order that in view of the provisions contained in Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, it was beyond the power of the lower Appellate Authority to condone the delay of 2 years and 2 months involved in the filing of the assessee's appeal.2. Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed....

Venkappa S/O Bhimarao Naik Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Society a ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. Though respondent No. 2 served, but remained unrepresented. Sri. V. Narasimha Holla, learned Standing Counsel for the state Employees' Insurance Corporation is directed to take notice for respondent No. 2.2. This Writ Petition is directed against the notice issued by the respondent No. 2 dated 25th October 2006. Fourth respondent is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. It had made certain deposits in the Belgaum D.C.C. Bank Branch at Gokak. Petitioner is the Branch Manager. Second respondent by notice dated 12/13th September 2006, had called upon the petitioner as a Branch Manager of the Belgaum District Co-operative Bank, Gokak to produce documents specified in the said notice and also directed the petitioner to take notice that in case of failure to comply with the summons issued under Rule 83 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 45-C to 45-I of the E.S.I. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'th...

i.C.D.S. Limited Represented by Its Managing Director, Sri. T. Mohanda ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Kar)54; [2007]291ITR18(KAR); [2007]291ITR18(Karn)

1. The appeal in ITA 101/2000 by the assessee pertains to the Assessment Year 1994-95, challenging the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee is a Public Limited Company, engaged, inter alia, in the business of leasing, financing and hire-purchase.2. The assessee had entered into several 'leasing' transactions involving moveables, with M/s. Kasturba Medical College, M/s. Manipal Institute of Technology and other Educational Institutions and Trusts.3. Under the terms of the several identical contracts, the appellant has purchased assets and leased the same to the afore-said Institutions. The appellant has received refundable security deposits, which sums were equivalent to the purchase value of the assets. The security deposits were interest bearing. The lease rental payable by the lessee was equal to the interest payable on the security deposit.4. The appellant claimed depreciation in respect of assets under these transactions, the assessing authority denied the same, hol...

Smt. Raheem Bee W/O Shaik Sahib Vs. the State Transport Authority in K ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR1191; 2007(2)KarLJ782007(1)Kar1191; 2007(3)KLJ78; 2007(2)KCCR1468; 2007(3)AIRKarR56; AIR2007NOC1379.

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. Petitioner claiming to be a stage carriage permit holder operating on route Bellary to Molkalmuru and back, within the Bellary scheme, applied for and secured renewal of permit under The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short Act, from the Karnataka State Transport Authority (for short 'KSTA). This order when called in question in Revision Petitions before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short 'KSTAT') by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, North East State Road Transport Corporation and the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Respondents 4, 3 and 5 respectively, was set-aside by common order dated 6-10-2006. Hence, this Writ petition.2. An examination of the order impugned discloses that the KSTAT on securing the records from the KSTA, noticed that M/s. KSRTC and North East Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation had no notice of the meeting dated 18/19-4-2000, to consider the applications of the petitioner and 20 oth...

Puttanna Shetty S/O Late Annayya Shetty (Since Deceased Represented by ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(2)KarLJ28

1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff. Suit is one for partition and separate possession in respect of schedules 'B', 'C' and 'D' properties to the plaint and plaintiff claims 3/8th share and also seeks rendition of accounts or mesne profits from defendant-1 from 1.9.1989.2. Facts as narrated in the plaint are as under:Plaintiff and defendant-1 are sons of late Annayya Shetty. They formed joint family with their late father Annayya Shetty. They are governed by Mithakshara law of Inheritance and Succession. Plaintiff's father died in or about 1979 as undivided member of the family. So his 1/3rd share belongs to his legal heirs since wife had pre-deceased him. Annayya Shetty had another son by name Chennappa Shetty who had died and his widow/defendant-5 is impleaded. Annayya Shetty has also a daughter by name Yamuna. She was the mother of defendant-4. Defendants 2 and 3 are his daughters. Plaintiff was in military services for about 8 years. He was discharged from the Army o...

The Union Bank of India, Represented by Its Deputy General Manager, K. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2007(115)FLR330]; 2007(4)KarLJ717; 2007(3)KCCRSN211&2007(4)KCCR2165; 2007(3)AIRKarR17

ORDERN. Ananda, J.1. The petitioner, the Union Bank of India has called in question the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in CR.No. 15/88. The respondent herein was working as a peon in Union Bank of India, Gokak Branch from 1967-68 to 1974 and thereafter he was transferred to Hebbal Branch of Belgaum District wherein he worked as peon till 1975, when the Belgaum Bank came to be merged into Union Bank. Mr. Andani was transferred from Hebbal Branch to the Belgaum Branch. While working as a peon in the bank it was detected that respondent had withdrawn certain amounts from SB accounts of various customers by forging their signatures. When the matter was being investigated the respondent had given two letters dated 4.9.78 and 13.9.78 as per Annexures M5 and M6. The contents of letter dated 4.9.1978 are as follows: The petitioner has admitted that he had committed forgery of signatures of account holders on pay slips and withdrawn amounts from the ...

H.M. Satish S/O Mote Gowda Vs. B.N. Ashok S/O Ninge Gowda

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: IV(2007)BC344; 2007CriLJ2312; ILR2007(1)Kar936; 2007(2)KLJ479; 2007(2)KCCR1262; 2007(3)AIRKar58; AIR2007NOC1383.

ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The revision petitioner/complainant is before this Court challenging the order dated 21.7.2006 made in CC No. 937/2005 on the fife of JMFC at Mudigere.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/complainant submitted that no evidence was adduced by the accused but he fifed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act (in short, 'the Act') to refer the cheque in question viz., EX.P-1 to hand writing expert for opinion whether the signature on the cheque is that of the accused or not The complainant objected the application. But the learned Magistrate allowed the application to refer the cheque in question to a hand writing expert.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused submitted that the cheque in question is one of the two cheques he lost and his signature is forged and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.4. The case of the complainant is that the respondent/accused approached the complainant...

Raveendranath Naik S/O Narayan Naik Advocate Vs. Bar Council of India ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2007Kant75; ILR2007(1)Kar953; 2007(2)KLJ474; 2007(2)KCCR1339; 2007(2)AIRKarR529; 2007(4)CivilLJ373

ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this petition, petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ or direction as against the resolutions of the 1st respondent directing the advocates not to participate in any program organised by the Legal Service Authorities in any Lok Adalath or any legal aid programs as illegal, void and inoperative and also to issue appropriate order restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents from giving effect to the resolution issued at annexure A passed by the 1st respondent and the 2nd resolution at annexure B dated 24.10.2002 passed by the 1st respondent and directing the 2nd respondent to follow the same and also quash the resolution at annexure C dated 26.10.2002 and annexure D dated 29.10.2002 issued by the 2nd respondent to all the Bar Associations of the State.2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his case, has relied upon the following decisions:C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice M. Bhatt...

Sri. Venkatanarayanappa S/O Govindappa Vs. Sri. Siddappa S/O Venkatapp ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(2)KarLJ37

N. Kumar, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal.2. Defendant is the owner of the suit property bearing Sy. No. 576 (Old S. No. 319/2) measuring 1 acre 22 guntas situated at Venkatapura, Kasaba hobli, Pavagada taluk, Tumkur District. Plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale to purchase the said land from the defendant for a sale consideration of Rs. 2500/- on 28.4.1987. It is his case that a sum of Rs. 1000/- was paid as advance on the date of the agreement which the defendant received to discharge the loan due to one VSSN Venkatapura, a Society, when the said society has brought the property for sale. However, the sale agreement was reduced into writing on 29.4.87. A sum of Rs. 1,200/- was paid under the aforesaid agreement on 18.8.87 which is endorsed on the agreement in front of the witnesses. The balance sale consideration of Rs. 300/ - was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed. All the documents pertaining to the suit schedule property...