Karnataka Court February 2008 Judgments
A. Sathyanarayan Vs. Sri K. Selvan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2650; ILR2008(2)Kar2650; 2008(5)KLJ622; 2008(3)KCCR1930; 2008(5)AIRKarR86; AIR2008NOC2544; 2008CrLJ3793; 2008(4)CivilLJ592
Jagannathan, J.1. Whether a counsel is disentitled to appeal- for the complainant on account of the counsel being a creditor to the complainant and whether the Power of Attorney holder is incompetent to file the complaint and give evidence in Section 138 proceedings of the N.I. Act and whether the cheques issued being dishonoured on account of the accounts being transferred to another branch of the same bank, attracts the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, are the questions that have cropped up during in the course of hearing of all these appeals, calling for an answer.2. The respondent in all these appeals being one and the same person and the cheques issued by him to each of the complainants having been dishonoured and all the cheques being issued in respect of a memorandum of agreement reached between the complainant Vishnu Bharath and one Bhakthavatsalam and the respondent; the trial Court after having the evidence of the power of attorney holder being recorded in all the c...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Chatlani @ Manu S/O Late Dayanand Chatlani Vs. the Central Bur ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2466; 2008(6)KarLJ50; 2008(2)KCCR1095; 2008(3)AIRKarR384
ORDERN. Ananda, J.1. The petitioners in these two petitions arrayed as accused 1 to 6 in C.C. No. 2767/2001, pending trial for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC, on the file of I Addl. Chief Metropolitan (Special) Magistrate (For C.B.I. Cases) at Bangalore, have sought to quash proceedings pending in C.C. No. 2767/2001.2. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows:Accused No. 1 - Ram T. Harpnlani @ Ram is the sole proprietor of M/s. Japan Mannequin Company, engaged in manufacture and sale of mannequins (life size dolls, used for displaying garments in readymade showrooms). Accused No. 3 Mr. Manohar Chatlani @ Manu is stated to be proprietor of M/s. Sona's Favourite Shop, which is also engaged in manufacture and sale of mannequins. During the period between September and November 1994, accused 1 & 3 entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the department of Central Excise (hereinafter referred to as 'Department') in the matter of payment of Central Ex...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kenchegowda Vs. K.B. Krishnappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR3453; 2009(4)KarLJ613; 2008(4)KCCR2536
N. Kumar, J.1. This is the plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court which has dismissed the suit for partition after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court which had decreed the suit.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.3. The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant Boregowda through his fourth wife Chikkathayama. Second defendant Krishnappa is the son of Boregowda through his second wife Smt. Jayamma. Basamma, Sakkamma and Boramma, defendants 3 to 5 are the daughters of Boregowda through his third wife Devamma.4. The case of the plaintiff is he and defendants constitute a Hindu Undivided Family. All the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. First defendant is the Kartha of the joint family. Plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit schedule properties as Co-larcener along with the defendants. As it is not possible for him to conti...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Loka Shikshana Trust
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR327]; (2008)IIILLJ945Kant; 2008(5)KLJ320
K. Ramanna, J.1. Both these appeals are filed under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, against the judgment and order dated June 10, 2002 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court, Hubli, in E.S.I. Application Nos. 10 and 11/1994, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent by setting aside the order passed by the appellant under Section 85-B of the ESI Act imposing damages for delayed payment of contribution dated January 20, 1994 and January 21, 1994.2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant herein has passed orders under Section 85-B of the ESI Act imposing damages for delayed payment of contribution.In M.F.A. No. 5600/2002 i.e., E.S.I. Application No. 10/1994 the appellant herein passed orders on January 20, 1994 imposing: damages of Rs. 2,278/- for delayed payment of contribution for the period from November 1980 to March 1985, andIn M.F.A. No. 6420/2002 i.e., E.S.I. Application No. 11/1994, orders passed on January ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: [2010]320ITR486(KAR); [2010]320ITR486(Karn)
Deepak Verma, J.1. Heard Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri S. Parthasarathi, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The Revenue is before us by filing this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter shall be referred to in short as 'the Act') against the order dated April 8, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'A', in I. T. A. No. 126/Bang/1997 for the assessment year is 1991-92.3. The appeal before the Tribunal was also at the instance of the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).4. The appellant has formulated the following substantial question of law:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate authorities were correct to hold that the profit/loss derived by the assessee on the sale of equity shares held by the assessee in M/s. MIC Auto Ancillaries Limited cannot be treated as a capital loss as held by the Assessing Officer but should be ...
Tag this Judgment!Harikishan S/O Gopikishan Malu, Vs. Ramesh S/O Apparao Kulkarni,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)KCCR1350; 2008(4)AIRKarR43; 2008AIHC2742(Kar)
K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is directed against the dismissal of the application filed by the appellants under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC seeking permission of the court to permit them to come on record as additional defendants in O.S. No. 88/98 pending on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge(Sr. Dn.), Gulburga.2. The case of the appellants are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed O.S. No. 88/88 against the respondents No. 2 and 3 herein for specific performance of contract and perpetual injunction contending that there was an oral agreement of sale of the portion of the property bearing No. 1-1295 at Gullabawadi, Aiwan-E-Shahi Road, Gulburga for an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- and that he had paid a sum of Rs. 2,19,000/- and how he has to pay only Rs. 1000/- as consideration. Since the respondents No. 2 and 3 refused to execute the sale deed he filed the said suit and also obtained an order of temporary injunction restraining respondents No. 2 and 3 from alienating the suit property in fa...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Sri Madhusudanandapuri, Swamiji of Omkarashrama Vs. the Assist ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR1704
K. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioner is before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing the order dated 5.11.2007 made in case No. MAG. 12/2007-08 on the file of respondent No. 1/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bangalore.2. Heard arguments.3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Petition may be stated as tinder:Sri Sri Sii Shivapuri Mahaswamiji of Omkarashrama, Bangalore, passed away on 25.7.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that on 9.8.2007, he was incarnated as the Mathadhipathi of Omkarashrama as per the desire of Shivapuri Mahaswamiji, As many as 12 Matadhipathis and many others had participated in the incarnation ceremony. The contesting respondent No. 4/Sri Purushothamanandapuri, Bhagiratha Peetha, Hosadurga, was also invited for the ceremony of incarnation as Peethadhipathi of Omkarashrama on 9.8.2007 and he participated in the ceremony. It is the case of the petitioner that on 26.11,...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Gurudeva Industries by Its Managing Partner Vs. the Director, Depa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR1765; 2008(3)KarLJ622; 2008(2)KCCR1124; AIR2008NOC1939
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel for the respondents.2. The facts are as follows:The petitioner is an industry engaged in Agro Food Processing and is a Partnership Firm. It is the petitioner's contention that the Government of Karnataka had announced a Comprehensive Industrial Policy, which had extended a package of incentives and concessions for new industries. The object of the New Industrial Policy for the period 2006-2011 was to increase the share of export of Karnataka in the national export market and to generate additional employment. The petitioner was registered under the small-scale sector in the Department of Industries and Commerce. The petitioner was permitted to procure agricultural produce directly from Fanners without going through the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee constituted under the Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966. Therefore, the New Industrial Policy had announced incentives for setting...
Tag this Judgment!Shivappa Malappa Tattimani Vs. the Disciplinary Authority and Division ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2225; 2008(4)KarLJ338; 2008(2)KCCR1107; 2008(3)AIRKarR347; 2008LabIC(NOC)874(Kar)
Subhash B. Adi, J.1. Petitioner, in this writ petition has sought for a direction to the respondent No. 1 not to proceed with the Disciplinary proceedings in view of the Criminal Case No. 332/2007 pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and C.J.M., Dharwad.2. Facts leading to this case are that, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 406, 408, 409 of I.P.C. on the allegation that, the petitioner has committed a crime of cheating, breach of trust by misappropriating the Corporation fund. Simultaneously, a departmental enquiry was also initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the charge sheet dated 19.02.2007 produced at Annexure 'A' inter-alia alleging that, the petitioner had made xerox tickets and has used them to collect the fares from the passengers. He had collected an amount of Rs. 1,268/- by way of sale of said tickets. It is also alleged that, he had sold tickets worth of Rs. 15,090/- and als...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Pandurang Alias Sathyabodh S/O Bhimarao Laxmeshwar Vs. the State o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2507; 2008(5)KarLJ34; 2008(2)KCCR965; 2008(3)AIRKarR266; 2008CriLJ2507; 2008(3)AICLR745
ORDERV. Jagannathan, J.1. The accused before the special court in SPL. (SVC) CC. No. 1/2002 is the petitioner herein and he is aggrieved by the trial court declining to discharge him and holding further that there is prima facie material to proceed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the PC Act' for short). Hence this petition calls in question the said order of the trial court.2. The facts in brief for the purpose of the present order are in effect that the respondent - the police wing of the Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Dharwad submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the PC Act on the ground that the petitioner who was working as a Junior Engineer at Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation, possessed assets disproportionate to his income, in as much as it was found that the value of the assets held by the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »