Karnataka Court June 2007 Judgments
Karnataka (Reg.) Unaided Schools Management's Association represented ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Kant157; ILR2007KAR3755; 2007(6)KarLJ129
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal arises from Writ Petition No. 7596/2007 filed by the Karnataka Unaided Schools Managements' Association. The challenge in the Writ Appeal is against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 29.05.2007. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition.2. The only challenge in Writ Petition No. 7596/2007 is against Annexure-F order dated 12.04.2007 issued by the Government of Karnataka, formulating a Voluntary Scheme for Recognised Private Schools which had obtained registration and recognition from the State Government after giving an affidavit of undertaking to run the school with Kannada/Mother Tongue as medium of instruction but later violated the undertaking and the conditions of recognition by running the school with English as medium of instruction. The said Government Order dated 12.04.2007 was issued against the following background:The State Government had issued an order dated 29.04.1994 stipulating that medium of instru...
Tag this Judgment!Puttaswamy @ Ikkal Rangaiah S/O. Revanna Vs. State of Karnataka by the ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ624; ILR2007(3)Kar3550; 2007(5)AIRKarR499(DB)
1. This appeal by the accused is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track (Sessions) Judge-III, Bangalore, dated 20.03.2004 in S.C. No. 418/2002, wherein the appellant-accused has been found guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC,, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months.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:2. It is the case of the prosecution that Sakamma, daughter of Lakshmamma and Kariappa, PWs. 1 and 2 respectively and sister of PW3-Gowramma was married to the accused and they had two children a son and a daughter. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 27.09.2001, the accused informed PW1 that their daughter-in-law was not well and took them to Tumkur and they reache...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Director of Public Instruction and the Joint Director of Pu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3175; 2007(6)KarLJ58
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This is a most unreasonable writ petition filed by the petitioners even after suffering a Judgment and Decree to which they were parties before the Educational Appellate Tribunal and continue to act in contempt of the orders passed by the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal in terms of a specific order passed on 19.12.2005.2. Respondent No. 1 was working as a peon in the respondent No. 2 - a private aided educational institution who was aggrieved by resolution passed by the Management in resolving to promote the respondent No. 3 as an Attender over and above the respondent No. 1. That resolution of the Management dated 25.4.1995 was questioned by the respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal and that appeal came to be allowed in EAT appeal No. 5/1995 in terms of the order dated 13.10.1999 [copy at Annexure-A] which reads as under:...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Yellappa S/O Late Muniyappa Vs. Smt. Yellamma W/O Narayanaswamy,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Kant181; 2008(1)KarLJ493; 2007(5)AIRKarR495
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. Notice to respondent No. 1 dispensed with as she has entered caveat.This appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the appellant as wall as the first respondent. During the course of this judgment, parties would be referred to as per their ranking before the trial court.2. Third-defendant is questioning the judgment and decree dtd 9-1-2007 passed by the learned trial Judge in OS No. 4910/1993 decreeing the suit with costs and directing the defendant No. 3 to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within three months from the date of the judgment and dismissing the suit against defendants 1 and 2.3. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for delivery of possession of the schedule property and for damages at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of the suit till delivery of possession and for costs and other reliefs.The suit schedule property is a house bearing No. 134, Kaneshumari No. 129,...
Tag this Judgment!Hayat Khan S/O. Mahaboob Khan Shivalli Vs. the Deputy Labour Commissio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR936]; ILR2007KAR2832; 2007(5)KarLJ607; (2008)ILLJ284Kant
1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dt. 11-11-2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 20439/2005 (L-WC). In doing that, the learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant -petitioner was running a motor-cycle repair shop under the name and style 'Best Service Centre'. The respondent No. 2 inspected the shop of the appellant on 18-7-2003 and reported that the appellant did employ a child labour in his shop and hence, he had registered a case for contravention of Section 3 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and issued a show cause notice to the appellant calling upon him to show cause as to why compensation should not be recovered from him. He had also registered a criminal case against him. Before the respondent No. 1, the appellant had also filed an application seeking permission of the respondent No. 1 to cross examine the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. Mahanthara Mutt Trust, a Religious and Charitable Trust (Represen ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3862; 2008(1)KarLJ564
H.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 7007/96 dated 20.1.01.2. The Plaintiff/Trust represented by its trustees filed a suit for possession of the schedule premises and for mesne profits alleging that plaintiff is the owner of the non-residential premises bearing Nos. 232 and 233 situate at A.S. Char street, Chickpet; the defendant is in occupation of the premises on a rental of Rs. 1,000/- per month and the tenancy commences on first of every month; the schedule property was measuring about 40' East to West and 10.5' North to South; consequent upon the demolition of the portion of the premises by the Bangalore City Corporation for widening the road, the measurement came to be reduced to 28' East to West and 10.5 North to South; stating that building is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction, plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant by issuing legal notice...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Tungabadra Minerals Ltd. Vs. Sri G. Ameer S/O Sri ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1953; ILR2007KAR3482; 2007(6)KarLJ233
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner's order, dt. 17.01.2004 passed in W.C.No. 1140/2001. It may not be necessary to refer to the facts of the case, as it is not in dispute that the respondent-workman is an employee under the appellant and that he has sustained injury in the course of the employment.2. Sri K.N. Srinivasa, learned Counsel for the appellant urges a solitary, but formidable, contention that the appellant has paid the salary for the laid up period, spent on the medical treatment of the respondent-workman and retained the services of the respondent-workman; therefore he has not suffered any loss of earning. Sri Srinivasa further submits that subsequent to the accident, the respondent-workman is even promoted from the cadre of Electrician to the cadre of Senior Electrician and that is placed on higher scale of pay. As there is no reduction in his earnings, the question of paying any compensation does not arise at a...
Tag this Judgment!B. Puttaswamy S/o Basappa Vs. Joseph D'Cruez S/o John D'Cruez,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3014; 2007(6)KarLJ138; 2007(4)KCCR2407; 2007(5)AIRKarR43; AIR2007NOC2114; 2007CrLJNOC922
H.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the order of the II Addl. Civil Judge, Mysore in OS 256/1983. The plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants. 2. According to the plaintiffs, defendants are the absolute owners of the suit schedule house and 1st defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of the said house in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/- and in furtherance of the said agreement, he wrote a letter to the plaintiff and also received a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as advance consideration. Subsequently on 24.5.1983 the defendant wrote a letter expressing his desire and decision for selling the said property in favour of the plaintiff for the agreed sale consideration. In reply, the defendant asked the plaintiff to collect the advance and also to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit house property. According to the plaintiff in unambiguous terms, the 1st defendant alth...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M.N. Enterprises
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Kar)478; ILR2007KAR3130; [2007]293ITR35(KAR); [2007]293ITR35(Karn)
ORDERN. Ananda, J.1. This reference is at the instance of revenue and the questions under reference are:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the consideration received on account of surrender of leasehold rights in carrying on hotel business which was sub-leased and not carried on by the assessee itself is not a business receipt but capital gains, but not taxable as no costs were involved?2. Whether, the Tribunal as a final fact finding body, was it not obliged to hold that if in case a capital receipt is not taxable under the head 'Capital Gains', the same is assessable under the head 'other sources' in view of the inclusive definition of income in Section 2 and Section 10(3) which takes into its ambit all receipts which are not chargeable under the head capital gains?2. The facts and the proceedings that gave rise to the questions under reference in brief are as follows:The assessee was carrying on hotel business b...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Bank, by Its Chief Manager Vs. the Secretary to the Government ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR1481; 2008(4)KarLJ406; 2008(2)KCCR856; 2008(3)AIRKarR117(DB)
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The deceased respondent No. 4 made an application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of land bearing TS. No. 832 measuring 2 acres 11 guntas situate in Boolur Village, Mangalore City. According to the appellant, Boolur is a part of Mangalore City.2. The appellant aggrieved by the grant filed W.P. No. 2499/1997. The learned Single Judge found that the impugned order of the Tribunal was not signed by all the members as required under Rule 17(8) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules thus set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh enquiry in accordance with law.3. The L.Rs of respondent No. 4 filed a Review Petition. The learned Single Judge has found that two members have indeed not signed the order, but it is only a technical lapse not going to the root of the matter. The learned Single Judge also finds that, proceeding in question are of the year 1975 and after lapse of 32 years the challenge is made. Incidentally, writ petition of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »