Karnataka Court March 2007 Judgments
Sri T.N. Sanikop Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR2324; 2007(4)KarLJ545
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and award, dated 31st March, 2005 passed by the Court of the III Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Belgaum, in L.A.Cs No. 11, 12, 13 and 14 of 1999.2. The brief facts of the case are that the lands in question were notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act [hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short] on 19th December, 1994 for the purpose of establishing Indian Medical Research Centre. The respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer, passed the award, dated 6th March, 1998 fixing the market value at Rs. 42,000/- per acre (Rs. 1,050/- per guntas). Contending that this fixation is on the lower side, the appellants sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act.3. The Reference Court enhanced the market value to Rs. 7,000/- per guntas based on this Court's judgment, dated 26th October, 1998 passed in M.F.A. No. 2384 of 1996 and other connected appeals. Aggrieved by this jud...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Bharath Shetty Y. S/O Dr. Y. Chandra Shekar Shetty, Vs. the Regist ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR2989; 2007(5)KarLJ272; 2007(4)KCCRSN264; 2007(4)AIRKarR546
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In all these cases, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Chancellor of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences dated 03.10.2006, whereby the election to the Senate of the University from Teachers other than the Professors' Constituency was set aside and the University was directed to hold fresh elections from the said constituency in accordance with law.2. Brief facts of the case are as under:Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore (for short 'University') issued a calendar of events for election of members to the Senate from 'amongst Teachers other than Professors' as per Sub-section (xii) of Section 21 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'). The calendar of events was notified on 03.06.2006. As many as 15 teachers filed their nomination papers for the election to the membership of the Senate from 'Teachers other than Professors' constituency. Five teachers were required to be ele...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. T.M. Aminabhavi S/O Malleshappa Aminabhavi Vs. Karnataka Universit ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KarLJ71; 2007(3)AIRKarR466
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the resolution passed by first respondent - Karnataka University dated 8th January 2007 in proceedings bearing No. KU-Syndicate/Meeting/2006-07/58 and the Articles of Charges issued by second respondent dated 27th January 2007 bearing No. KU /DPAR(T)2007/604 vide Annexures A and B respectively, has presented the instant writ petition.2. The brief facts of the case of petitioner is that, petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the respondent -University in the Department of Chemistry. Thereafter, petitioner has discharged the duties of Director of Polymer Science. an Institute. established by the University Grants Commission (UGC). When things stood thus, the Syndicate of the first respondent -University has passed the resolution in its meeting held on 9th January 2007, authorizing the second respondent herein to initiate the departmental enquiry against the petitioner vide Annexure A. The second respondent has is...
Tag this Judgment!Madina Masjid, Represented by Its General Secretary Mr. Abdul Razack S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KarLJ318; 2007(3)AIRKarR306
ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the VI Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore in M.A. No. 72/2003 dated 22-9-2003 vide Annexure-A and for such other reliefs.2. The petitioner is said to be a Madina Masjid situated at Sulthan Gi Gunta Road, Bangalore owning a property let out to the first respondent at Babmoo Bazaar. According to the petitioner, the property in question is a wakf institution and it belongs to the management of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent is an unauthorised occupant in respect of a portion of the property bearing No. 40 at Sulthan Gi Gunta Road and ha is using it for housing about 50 and more cattle and it has become a nuisance to the entire area. Inspite of the requests and complaints, the first respondent did not vacate the premises and hence the petitioner said to have initiated the proceedings under the Karnataka Publ...
Tag this Judgment!Bandrappa Vs. State by Gadigenur Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3190; 2007(3)KLJ183; 2007(4)AIRKarR94; 2007(3)KarLJ183
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The petitioner being the accused in Crime No. 303 of 2005 of Gadigenur Police Station, Sandur Taluk, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 4( 1-A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as MMRD Act' for short), has sought for quashing the proceedings pending before the Court below by filing this petition.2. The records disclose that the petitioner is the owner of the land in question, and has dug and extracted ore from his land and stored the ore in his land near Ubbalagundi Village. According to the prosecution, the petitioner wanted to stealthily transport the ore without the licence or permit of the State Government. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not obtained any licence or permit as required under the law for extracting and transporting the minerals. Hence, the charge-sheet is filed against him for the offenc...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Wealth Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Wealt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Kar)43; 2006(6)AIRKarR69(DB)
R. Gururajan, J.1. Revenue is before us raising the following questions of law;a. Whether the tribunal was correct in holding that the value of properties held by the assessee at Adugodi and Koramangala is not chargeable to wealth tax as the same are not urban are not urban land but land with super structure and cannot form part of the wealth as defined under Section 2(e)(a) of the Act.b. Whether the properties of the assessee cannot be brought to Wealth Tax assessments?2. The facts of the case are as under;Assessee is assessed in the status of Hindu Undivided Family. During assessment year 2000-01, assessee owned a property at sy.Noo.67/2. 67/3, 67/4 and 67/5 at Adugodi Village and portion of Sy.No.151 at Koramangala Village of Begur Hobli of Bangalore South Taluk. This property was given to M/S Prestige Estates Properties Private Ltd, Bangalore under various agreements for construction of residential flats. The development agreement was considered by the assessing officer in the cour...
Tag this Judgment!Sri A.R. Oomar Sait S/O Late A.R. Rehman Sait and ors. Vs. Sri B.S. Ra ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ134; ILR2007(4)Kar4051; 2007(4)KCCRSN251; 2007(6)AIRKarR43
ORDERK. Ramanna, J. 1. This revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners - landlords against the Order on I.A. No. 6, dated 26.07.2006 passed by the VII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, (SCCH-3) in HRC No. 486/2005, whereby the Trial Court allowed the application-I.A. No. 6 filed by the respondent under Section 43(2)(b) of the Karnataka Rent Act read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code.2. The main grounds urged by the revision petitioners are that the Trial court erred in holding that since agreement of sale is executed between the revision petitioners and the respondent in respect of purchase of petition schedule property, the earlier possession of tenant is deemed to be terminated; that the agreement of sale is barred by limitation and the agreement came to be cancelled much earlier and there was no suit pending for enforcement of the contract even on the date of HRC petition; that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated in holding that if the r...
Tag this Judgment!North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Gulbarga Division by I ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ131; 2007(3)KCCRSN125; 2007(3)AIRKarR535; 2007-III-LLJ-664(DB
Ashok B. Hinchigeri J.1. There is a delay of 52 days in filing this appeal. We are satisfied with the explanation offered. We therefore allow IA.II of 2007 and condone the delay of 52 days in filing the appeal.2. This appeal is directed against the learned Single Judge's order, dated 24th July, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 5599 of 2006.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent was working as a Senior Driver in the appellant-Corporation. He suffered the disability while in service. On account of his suffering the disability, he was shifted from the cadre of Senior Driver to that of Peon. Thereafter, he was being given the salary, etc. attached to the cadre of the Peon only. On ventilating his grievances before the Labour Court in Reference No. 549 of 1999, the Labour Court, by its award dated, 5th November, 2004 directed the appellant to extend the benefit of the scale of the Senior Driver, which the respondent was drawing with effect from 24th December, 1996 inclusi...
Tag this Judgment!Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Kurukunta Cement Factory, Represented ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ387; (2008)ILLJ26Kant; 2007(4)AIRKarR188.
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 31.8.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Gratuity Act') directing the petitioner who was appellant before the Appellate Authority to deposit the amount of gratuity to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority.2. The respondents made applications before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Controlling Authority') seeking payment of gratuity from the petitioner on the ground that they were employed by the petitioner through a contractor for the period from 1.11.1981 to 1.12.1988. The Controlling Authority by order dated 27.1.2004 directed for payment of gratuity as calculated on the basis of the wages of the respondents. The said order of the Controlling Authority was called in question by the petitioner in the appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority in Appeal Nos....
Tag this Judgment!H.S. Mohanamba W/O Yellaiah Vs. Ms. Vatsala Watsa, Principal Secretary ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: ILR2007(2)Kar1692; 2007(3)KLJ509; 2007(3)KCCRSN195; 2007(3)AIRKarR328(DB).
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. This petition is filed by one Smt. H.S. Mohanamba, W/o. Yellaiah, challenging the detention order dated 14.7.2006 issued by the first respondent in terms of the provisions of COFEPOSA. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the 4th respondent to set at liberty the COFEPOSA detenue R. Yellaiah.2. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:The detenu has put in more than 31 years of blemishless service in the Department of Customs. He was posted to the Postal Appraising Department of the Foreign Post Office, Bangalore. He took charge from the predecessor Sri. E. Lakshmanan. He explained the procedures and practices followed in the Foreign Post Office PAD wing. The detenue followed the same. Based on such information, Officers of the DRI Maintained surveillance at Frazer Town Post Office. On 28.12.2005, at about 9.30 a.m. a Tata Indica car comes alongwith driver and occupant. The occupant goes into the post office and later he comes out of the post offi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »