Karnataka Court October 2008 Judgments

V.S. Gopalaswamy and ors. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR4871

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioners are questioning the act of the respondent BDA and also the provisions of Rule 6(2) and 6(3) of the BDA (Disposal of Corner Sites & Commercial Sites), Rules, 1984 as constitutionally invalid and, to strike down the said rules and to issue a mandamus and any other appropriate writ directing the respondent BDA to issue notice under Rule 6(3) confirming the auction sale in favour of the petitioners in respect of site Nos. 823, 410, 438, 796 and 824 comprised in Sector 1 of Hosur Sarjapur Road Layout sold at public auction held by the BDA on 30.7.1993 and to accept the balance of 75% of the site value in respect of each of the said sites in question and deliver vacant possession of the said sites to the petitioners.2. According to the petitioners, in the petitions filed earlier, they had sought for an interim direction to the BDA not to dispose of the auction sites in any manner. After notice was served on the respondent in the earlier petitions, af...

Smt. Mohini Devi Chopra and ors. Vs. Directorate of Civil Rights Enfor ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(6)KarLJ689

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioners, questioning the correctness or otherwise of communications all dated 5th February, 2004 and all bearing No. Arji/2/SP/DCRE/BC/2004 and another communication dated 24th August, 2004 bearing No. Arji/2/SP/DCRE/BC/2004 respectively vide Annexures-M1 to M6 issued by fifth respondent and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, have presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioners have sought for a direction, directing the respondents 4 and 5 not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of petitioners in respect of the Schedules A and B properties.2. I have heard Mr. Male, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents.3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, at the outset, on instructions from third respondent, who is present before the Court, submitted that, the prayers sought for by petitioners do not survive for consideration in view of withdrawal of the compl...

Sunandamma (Since Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. the Special Land Acquisition O ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ189:2009(3)AIRKarR432:AIR2009NOC1871.

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Claimant in the Reference Court is the appellant. She was the owner of land to an extent of 1 acre 5 guntas in Sy. No. 90/1 and an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy. No. 90/2 of Kelagote Village, Chitradurga Taluk, which were acquired pursuant to a preliminary notification dated 16-9-1982 issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, which is analogous to Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). After the final declaration, the possession of the acquired property was taken by the Competent Authority on 27-7-1985. The Land Acquisition Officer, passed the award under Section 11 of the Act at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre on 24-12-1987. On an application filed under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by the claimant, seeking reference to the Civil Court, for determination of the market value of the acquired property, a reference was made. The Reference Court in exercise of its jurisdictio...

Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. K. Venkatesh Dutt

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]319ITR331(KAR); [2009]319ITR331(Karn)

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. These three appeals and the cross-objection pertain to the same parties, involving similar questions of fact and law.2. Hence, we consider them together, hear the parties and pass a common order.3. The material facts of the case disclose that one K. Venkatesh Dutt-assessee (cross-objector) had filed returns for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. Intelligence Wing conducted raid and on search of the premises of the same, some incriminating documents were seized. The assessee filed a revised return for the assessment year 1986-87 showing his income as Rs. 62,00,000 as against Rs. 30,00,000 as mentioned in the earlier returns. The assessee had claimed certain deductions. The assessing authority (A.O.) called upon the assessee to produce necessary documents to justify the deductions claimed. Documents were not produced by the assessee. The assessing authority assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,03,00,000 for the year 1986-87. The assessee file...

Sunandamma (Since Deceased by Lrs. M.V. Padmanabha Shetty Step Son of ...

Court: Karnataka

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Claimant in the Reference Court is the appellant. She was the owner of land to an extent of 1 acre 5 guntas in Sy. No. 90/1 and an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy. No. 90/2 of Kelagote Village, Chitradurga Taluk, which were acquired pursuant to a preliminary Notification dated 16.9.82 issued under Section 28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act 1966, which is analogous to Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short 'the act'). After the final declaration, the possession of the acquired property was taken by the competent authority on 27.7.85. The Land Acquisition Officer, passed the award under Section 11 of the act at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre on 24.12.87. On an application filed under Section 18(1)(a) of Land Acquisition Act by the claimant, seeking reference to the Civil Court, for determination of the market value of the acquired property, a reference was made. The Reference Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Secti...

Sanjay JaIn Vs. the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR4820

ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Geetha Menon, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, who has taken notice for respondents No. 1 and 2.2. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the brother of the petitioner who was arrested, tried and convicted in S.C. No. 130/98 for the offence punishable under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. It is not much in dispute that the Spl. Judge has found him guilty of the offence alleged and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. One lakh carrying default sentence. The conviction passed by the Spl. Judge has been affirmed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 744/2005. The grievance of the petitioner (brother of the detenu-Accused No. 1) is that, his brother/A-1 has completed the sentence of imprisonment of 10 years and has also paid the fine and as such, was entitled to be released as having completed the sentence on 9/10/2008.3. However, as the jail authority is not ready to relea...

Ghatge Karkera Power Industries Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commerc ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2009)26VST378(Karn)

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The material facts of the case are as follows:The appellant is a manufacturer of diesel generator (DG) sets and other allied products. The appellant's head office is situated at Padubidri in Karnataka. The appellant has a branch office at Goa. The appellant entered into contract with Telecom Department in Karnataka for supply and installation of DG sets in different places in Karnataka. It is the contention of the appellant that the contract although is entered by the head office at Padubidri, the works contract was executed by the branch office at Goa and that the said transaction has been accounted to sales tax at Goa.2. The assessing authority had found that the transaction has been entered into by the head office, Padubidri and that the contract works have been executed by the head office at Padubidri. Therefore, the transaction of supply and installation of DG sets to Telecom Department is liable for assessment in the State of Karnataka. Accordingly, to the e...

The Tahsildar (Ulc) Section, Special Deputy Commissioner and Competent ...

Court: Karnataka

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the respondents in W.P. No. 49442/2004 is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2006 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition and set aside the endorsement bearing No. ULC/SR/11/1976-77 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore.2. The essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties in the writ petition are as follows:The writ petitioner claimed interest in the Urban land measuring to an extent of 37 cents in Sy. No. 98-2/C of Alape Village, Mangalore Taluk having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 13.2.2004 executed by the erstwhile owner of the land Mrs. Alice D'souza and Mrs. Francis Lobo. The petitioner wanted to put up a construction in the said property and during the course of taking licence from the competent authority, petitioner came to now about the pendency of Urban Land Ceiling proceedings and on furt...

Vijaya Bank and ors. Vs. Mohan Das Ramana Shetty

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009(121)FLR281]; 2008(6)KarLJ679

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The above writ appeal is directed against the order dated 9-7-2008 made in Writ Petition No. 21279 of 2002 filed by the respondent herein to quash the proceedings dated 26-11-2001 passed by the 3rd appellant herein viz., the Deputy General Manager, Personnel Department (IRD), Vijaya Bank, Head Office, where the Disciplinary Authority had in a disciplinary action initiated against the respondent-employee, based on the findings of the enquiry into the charges arrayed against the respondent herein, imposed the following punishments:(a) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of MMGS II by one stage for a period of one year which will have the cumulative effect of postponing his future increments.(b) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment.The aforesaid penalties are to run concurrently i.e., in all penalty of removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment, is imposed on Sri Mohan Das R....

Vijaya Bank and ors. Vs. Sri Mohan Das Ramana Shetty

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR5022; (2009)IILLJ241Kant

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The above writ appeal is directed against the order dated 9-7-2008 made in Writ Petition No. 21279 of 2002 filed by the respondent herein to quash the proceedings dated 26-11-2001 passed by the 3rd appellant herein viz., the Deputy General Manager, Personnel Department (IRD), Vijaya Bank, Head Office, where the Disciplinary Authority had in a disciplinary action initiated against the respondent-employee, based on the findings of the enquiry into the charges arrayed against the respondent-herein, imposed the following punishments:(a) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of MMGS II by one stage for a period of one year which will have the cumulative effect of postponing his future increments.(b) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment.The aforesaid penalties are to run concurrently i.e., in all penalty of removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment, is imposed on Sri Mohandas R. ...