Karnataka Court March 2007 Judgments
Shivaji S/O Tukaram Sonavale Vs. Parvathibai W/O Bhavu Pawar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KarLJ323; 2007(3)AIRKarR335;
H.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. This second appeal is by the defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn), Jamkhandi in RA 1/1998.2. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and injunction and in the alternative for possession, before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn), Jamkhandi in OS 98/1992.3. It is stated in the plaint that one Bhavu Pawar had two issues, one by name Ramappa, and another by name Rukamavva. Ramappa had a son by name Bhavu and Parvathibai, the plaintiff is his wife. The said Bhavu predeceased Parvathibai. Plaintiff claims the suit property stating that it is gifted to her husband by Rukmavva, his maternal aunt and she also sought for declaration and injunction and in the alternative, for possession. The defendants claim to be the son of Tukaram who is none other than the brother of Parvathibai. It appears, according to the plaintiff, the property was gifted to her husband as early as in the year 1940 by Rukmavva under a registered gift dee...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Bpl Engineering Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(217)ELT338(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Revenue is before us challenging the order of the tribunal. The tribunal after hearing has chosen to set aside the order confirming service tax and the penalty in the case on hand.2. The tribunal noticed in para 4 that the revenue has conceded the matter before the tribunal and in those circumstances, the tribunal has chosen to accept the case of the assessee.3. Sri Shashikanth, learned Counsel for the revenue would say that there exists changed circumstances. If that is so, it is always open to the revenue to file an appropriate review petition before the tribunal. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.4. Appeal stands rejected reserving liberty to the department to file a review petition before the tribunal, if available to them and in accordance with law....
Tag this Judgment!Anatha Shishu Sevashrama (Registered) by Its Hon'ble Secretary, Sri B. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ551; 2007(5)AIRKarR409
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:(i) declare that the Development Scheme insofar as it relates to Schedule land measuring 25 acres 20 guntas of J.B. Kaval belonging to the petitioner as notified under the final notification No. HUD 41 MNJ 78 dated 30.06.1979 at Annexure-E stood lapsed on 30.08.1984 as the 2nd respondent had failed to execute the scheme substantially within five years from the date of the said final notification and abandoned the scheme thereafter.(ii) Quash the map called the Modified Layout Plan dated 24.07.1998 at Annexure-S of the 2nd respondent insofar as it relates to petitioners land as the same is illegal and the 2nd respondent has no authority to prepare the said Map. Without disclosing the original map subjected to this modification.(iii) Quash the Government order No. HaAaEe 145 BeAaSe 2000 dated 12.07.2002 at Annexure-W and direct the 1st respondent to take necessary action as per the provisions under Section 48(1...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Harsha S/O L.B. Shivanna Vs. State of Karnataka by Yeshwanthpura P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR290; 2008(3)KarLJ156; 2008(3)KCCRSN233(DB)
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The case of the prosecution that one Kushal(deceased), aged about 4 years, a student in St. Lords school, Mathikere. P.W. 16 is the father of the deceased. The P.W. 19 is the mother of the deceased, who usually used to pick up the child after school hours. On 19.8.1996, P.W. 19 had some other work, therefore, requested her son-P.W. 17 to bring the deceased from the school. P.W. 17 is a teen-aged boy, forgets the instructions of his mother. P.W. 19 returned home and found that the deceased has not come back from the school, therefore goes to the school to make enquiry, to her dismay finds that all the children had gone home and the deceased was not found in the school but school bag and tiffen box belonging to the deceased was in the class room. P.W. 16 and P.W. 19 makes intense search in vain to know the whereabouts of the deceased. On the same day in the night at 11.35 p.m. P.W. 16 lodged a missing complaint before the Yeshavanthapura police.2. On 20.8.1996 ...
Tag this Judgment!Kum. Nagalakshmamma D/O Late B. Rangappa Vs. the Chairman, Karnataka P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR1532; 2007(5)KarLJ43; 2007(3)KCCRSN188; 2007(3)AIRKarR469
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 13th February 2002 bearing No. KANIEN(V)/SALEA/SALEA1/K54/9707-10 passed by the second respondent - Executive Engineer, Chikkaballapur, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner afresh in proper perspective and to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds.2. The petitioner herein claims to be the daughter of late Sri. B. Rangappa, who was working as 'watchman' in Karnataka Electricity Board, at Bagepalli, and he died while in service on 25th September 1985, leaving behind the petitioner herein and his wife Smt. Adilakshmamma and there were no other children to late Sri. B. Rangappa. After lapse of nearly fifteen years, the mother of the petitioner, Smt. Adilakshmamma gave a representation to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds as she was the only daughte...
Tag this Judgment!Srinidhi Anantharaman, Managing Director, Geo Desic Techniques Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR711]; ILR2007KAR3055; 2007(5)KarLJ446
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. W.P. No. 30595/2003 is filed by Sri. Srinidhi Anantharaman, Managing Director of M/s. Geo Desic Techniques Pvt. Ltd., seeking declaration that, the State Government is the Appropriate Government in respect of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore under Section 2 Sub-section (1) Clause (a) Sub-clause (ii) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'CLRA Act') and under Section 2 Clause (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act') and for a declaration that the 5th respondent - Inspecting Officer of the State Government is the Competent Authority.2. W.P. No. 30593/2003 is also filed for declaration similar to the above relief.3. In these writ petitions, the only question that is raised is:Whether the State Government is the Appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 2 Sub-section (a) Clause (ii) of C.L.R.A. Act and Section 2 Clause (a) of the Act in respect of H...
Tag this Judgment!Chandigarh Housing Board. Vs. Devinder Singh and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: AIR2007SCW2724; AIR2007SC1723; 2007(8)JT567(SC); 2007(6)ALT64(DNSC); 2007(4)SCJ353; 2007(9)SCC67
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Interpretation of a condition of eligibility for allotment of a housing plot in the Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra under the Manimajra Housing Scheme Phase III 1993 by the appellant herein is in question in this appeal which arises out of the judgment and order dated 25.2.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No.7070/1998.2. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. Respondent No.1 is a retired Army Officer. He and his wife jointly became member of a cooperative Society known as 'Army Welfare Housing Organisation' ('AWHO' for short). The said Cooperative Society was registered with the Registrar of Societies, Delhi under the Societies Registration Act being, XXI of 1860.3. 'AWHO' was allotted some land in Delhi by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.4. Respondents applied for and were allotted a dwelling unit by the appellant-Board in the said Housing Scheme. Having come to know of the purported allotment of a hou...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Gnr J.J. Xavier Vs. Cda (Pensions) and Oic Army Air Defence Record ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ427; 2007(3)AIRKarR270
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the impugned speaking order dated 27th April 2006 bearing No. AAD/14307769/DP/132/PG/(LC) vide Annexure C passed by Lt. Col. Of second respondent herein, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the competent authority to grant 20% disability pension to the petitioner.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that, petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 37492/2002 (S-R), assailing the correctness of the order passed by first respondent therein vide Annexure B in the said writ petition. Further, petitioner had also sought for grant of disability pension of 20% so that he can peacefully spend the remaining days of his life. The said writ petition had come up for consideration before this Court on 13th June 2005. This Court after hearing both sides, had set aside the impugned order therein passed by the competent authority and the matter stood...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gurusiddawwa W/O Annaraya and Smt. Nagamma W/O Mallikarjuna Vs. t ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KarLJ250; 2007(4)AIRKarR541
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. However enlarged a meaning and interpretation is given to Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), I am still unable to comprehend with the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Gulbarga, in its proceedings No. LRM-TNC-212-75-75 dated 30-7-2002, vide Annexure-'C', granting occupancy rights to the third respondent who had filed form No. 7 against petitioners, who are daughters of his elder brother in respect of the lands which were owned by the father of the applicant and the petitioners' grand father one by name Irappa Jevargi.2. It is in such circumstances, the third respondent claimed the benefit of Section 4 of the Act, i.e., as a deemed tenant as he was in possession and cultivation of the subject lands. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time the petitioners' father was no more alive and that the petitioners were married with the help of the third respondent himself by the mother of the third respondent and the t...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Samad Mulla S/O Syed Rustum Mulla and Abdul Azim Mulla S/O Abdul ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ1212007(3)KCCRSN122; 2007(3)AIRKarR499.
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the order passed by the 1st respondent in No. I.N.D. CR 162/2006-07 dated 9.2.2007 (Annexure-F) whereby the 1st respondent has imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/ each against the petitioners on the ground that petitioners were transporting iron ore illegally in their lorries bearing registration No. KA-25/8399 and KA-22/5786.2. The petitioners contend that they are the owners of the lorries in question and that the lorries were employed for transportation of Iron Ore of M/s. SESA GOA Limited Company from Megalahalli, Chitradurga Taluk to Bellikere port at Karwar Taluk. The case of the petitioners is that they are the holders of the valid permits issued by respondents 3 and 4 for transportation of Iron Ore. Petitioners have produced copy of the permits at Annexures-A, B, C and D respectively. It is contended that the M/s. SESA OOA Limited Company is the permit holder to transport the Iron Ore from Megalahall...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »