Karnataka Court March 2007 Judgments
Prestige Garden Estates Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Its Director and Aut ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: [2007]139CompCas372(Kar); 2007(4)KarLJ412; 2007(4)AIRKarR66(DB)
1. These appeals are admitted, heard and disposed of together, for the sake of convenience and expedition.2. The facts leading up to these appeals may be briefly summarised as follows:NGEF Limited (in liquidation) (NGEF) was a joint venture company of the State Government of Karnataka and M/s E.H.G. Electro Holding GmbH, Germany, (EHG) with the State Government holding 90.28% of the shares of the company and the balance 9.72% of the shares held by E.H.G.NGEF suffered huge losses and became a sick industrial undertaking and was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, in the year 1994. The BIFR explored the possibility of rehabilitation and revival of the company and ultimately, by an order dated 2-8-2002, opined that NGEF is not likely to make its nett worth exceed its accumulated losses within any reasonable time and held that it is just and equitable and in public int...
Tag this Judgment!Poornaprajna House Building Cooperative Society Ltd., a Cooperative So ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Kant136; 2008(1)KarLJ672
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, petitioner has assailed the validity and correctness of the order passed by the first respondent - the Karnataka Information Commission (for short 'the Commission') dated 10.05.2006 in Appeal No. KIC 16 APL 2006 (Annexure 'O') and for certain other reliefs.2. Petitioner is a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959. The second respondent is a member of the petitioner - Society. He had filed two applications dated 07.11.2005 and 17.11.2005 in Form A under Section 6(1) and 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI Act') seeking certain information and documents pertaining to the functioning of the Society including personal details of its members. The Society rejected the said application by the order dated 06.12.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the second respondent filed an appeal before the President of the petitioner - Society presuming that he is an appella...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Bhasker S. Kattemar Son of Shringeri Nagaswamy Vs. Sri P.E. Hameed ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ56; 2007(3)KCCR1948; 2007(3)AIRKarR528(DB)
R. Gururajan, J.1. This appeal is filed by the defendant Bhasker S. Kattemar challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2000 passed in Original Suit No. 521 of 1988 on the file of the First Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mangalore, D.K. The facts narrated in the appeal memo are as under:Rank of the parties in this appeal are referred to as per the ranking before the trial court. Respondent plaintiff filed a suit for refund of advance purchase price and for damages. According to the plaint averments, defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property. It is a commercial plot. Defendant sought for eviction of his tenant in HRC No. 93 of 1976 on the file of the Munsiff, Mangalore. He was in urgent financial need, and thus he was intending to sell and dispose of the suit properties. Defendant appellant approached the plaintiff and by mutual agreement, defendant appellant agreed to sell the suit property for Rs. 10,83,000/-. Defendant entered into an agreement in this behal...
Tag this Judgment!C. Hanumanthappa S/O. Chinnappa Vs. State of Karnataka Represented by ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ394; ILR2007(2)Kar1845; 2007(3)KCCRSN124; 2007(3)AIRKarR510;
ORDERManjula Chellur, J.1. These two Writ Petitions arise out of the orders passed by the Land Tribunal in LRF.ATC. 3373/75-76 dated 25.5.2001. The Writ Petition 21925/01 is filed by the applicant who sought for grant of occupancy rights in respect of ay No. 33/2 of Hosakerehalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South, measuring 10 acres. The other Writ Petition 22437/01 is filed by the legal representatives of the landlord Mr. Appaji.2. The Tribunal while disposing of the application, rejected grant of occupancy rights in respect of 7 acres of land in the above said sy. number which is the subject matter of challenge in the first Writ Petition. The grant of occupancy rights in favour of C. Hanumanthappa to an extent of 3 acres in the same sy. number is challenged in the 2nd Writ Petition.3. There is no dispute so far as Mr. Marulaiah purchasing the above said land in all measuring 10 acres. The dispute seems to be with regard to the occupancy of the land by Mr. C. Hanumanthappa a...
Tag this Judgment!Muniyamma W/O Late Bheemanna @ Subbanna Vs. State of Karnataka Dept. o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ11
ORDERManjula Chellur, J.1. The contentions of the parties in nutshell are as under:2. The writ petitioner claims to be the legal representative of original owner Mr. Munivenkatappa (her father-in-law). The present Writ Petition is filed by her, being aggrieved by the notification dated 22.3.2005 at Annexure - K made by the 1st respondent State in No. Na.Aa.Ee.30 Bim. Bhu.Swa.2004.Father-in-law of the present petitioner was the owner of land bearing Sy. Nos. 50, 51 & 52 totally measuring 21 acres and 39 guntas situate at Tavarakere village of Begur Hobli. In this Writ Petition only survey number 50 measuring 6 acres 20 guntas is the subject matter (hereinafter referred to as 'the land'). Petitioner is the wife of one of the sons of Munivenkatappa by name Bheemananna @ Subbanna who died on 24.1.2005.The State Government in exercise of its eminent domain power proceeded to acquire the land in question along with other lands for a public purpose, i.e. formation of Byrasandra Tavarakere Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Additional District Magistrate and Police Commissioner Rep. by Mr. Nar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ565; 2007(3)AIRKarR543(DB)
R. Gururajan, J.1. This Review Petition is filed seeking an order to review the Judgment and order passed in W.P. No. 156/2005 and W.P. No. 1/2006 dated 1.9.2004.2. Respondent - Writ petitioner was detained under the provisions of Goondas Act. The same was challenged before this Court. Statements were filed. Writ petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1988 (Suppl.) SCC 568. This Court placing reliance on the said Judgment has chosen to allow the Writ Petition in W. P. No. 1/2006. The said order is sought to be reviewed in the Review Petition.3. Statement of Objection is filed by the respondent. It is contended that no case is made out for reviewing the order passed by this Court. Even otherwise, it is contended that the order of detention has come to an end and even if the order has come to an end, petitioner cannot ordered to be taken back to jail in the given circumstances.4. After hearing, we have carefully perused the material placed on record.5. Admitte...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Geetha W/O Neelakanta and Neelakanta S/O M.D. Marigowda Vs. Sub I ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3496; 2007(4)KarLJ619; 2007(4)AIRKarR150
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The first writ petitioner is a lady against whom Crime No. 57 of 2002, which was registered on 30-9-2002 for commission of offences attracting Sections 176, 420, 498 IPC, is pending at the Mudigere police station, Mudigere circle and taluk. The second petitioner is the husband of the first petitioner and also arrayed as an accused in the said crime number.2. The petitioners have sought for quashing of the proceedings in this crime number, which is now on the file of the JMFC, Mudigere, with the police having filed a report before the Magistrate.3. It is the case of the petitioners that an excise case in CC No. 248 of 2000 at the instance of the Sub-inspector of Excise, Mudigere [first respondent herein] is pending against one Yogamma wife of Neelakantegowda for having violated Sections 11 and 14 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [for short, the Act] punishable under Sections 34 and 43A of the Act; that summons had been issued to the said accused person and th...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., Rep. by Its Dy. Gen. Manager Finance, Sri. D ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT69; 2007(4)AIRKarR163
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioners are all persons who come within the definition of 'assessee' as defined under Section 2(1)(a) of the Karnataka Special Tax on Entry of Certain Goods Act, 2004 [Karnataka Act No. 29 of 2004] [for short, the Act], who are complaining of the liability for payment of tax created in terms of the charging Section - Section 3 - of the Act, which reads as under:3. Levy and collection of tax- (1) Subject to other provisions of this Act, there shall be levied and collected a tax on the entry of any notified goods into any local area for consumption, use or sale therein, on the value of the notified goods at the rate specified in respect of such goods under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.(2) The tax shall be payable by an importer in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.to be a tax levied by the Karnataka State in violation of the provisions of Part-XIII of the Constitution of India; that the levy of such a tax direc...
Tag this Judgment!State by Sub-inspector of Police Vs. Cauverappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR74; 2007(5)KarLJ104; 2007(4)AIRKarR651
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court of XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in Sessions Case No. 451 of 2000, dated 30-1-2002 wherein accused 1 and 3 to 5, the respondents herein have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 366, 342 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.2. 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.-It is the case of the prosecution that P.W. 1-the complainant, the mother of P.W. 2 lodged a complaint before Adugodi Police Station on 21-3-1997 at about 10 P.M. as per Ex. P. 1. P.W. 11 is the Head Constable who registered the said complaint, prepared the FIR as per Ex. P. 8, went to the spot and prepared mahazar as per Ex. P. 2. It is averred in the complaint that the accused are known to the complainant and they are the residents of her par...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Malliga Paneer Selvam W/O Sri R. Paneer Selvam Vs. Sri Raja Sathy ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR2786; 2007(5)KarLJ222; 2007(3)KCCR1698; 2007(4)AIRKarR326; AIR2007NOC1816
ORDERAbdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, petitioner has called in question the order passed by the XV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 1036/2000 dated 12.9.2006 whereby the court below has directed the petitioner to pay duty and penalty in a sum of Rs. 81,675/- on document - Ex.D1 within two weeks from the date of the said order.2. The first respondent/plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner and other respondents seeking their eviction from the suit schedule property and for delivery of vacant possession in his favour. Petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the defendants in the said suit. They have contested the said suit Plaintiff filed his affidavit of evidence in the said suit on 29.3.2004. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants, he was confronted with a lease deed. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff raised an objection for marking of the said document, out the ground, that it is insufficiently stampe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »