Karnataka Court February 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Belgaum District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. the Mahantesh C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR1646; 2008(3)KarLJ608; 2008(2)KCCR1078; 2008(3)AIRKarR318; AIR2008NOC1953; 2008(3)ICC673; 2008AIHC2481(Kar)(DB)
S.R. Bannurmath, J. 1. The appellant - The Belgaum District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, which is not a party in the Execution Proceedings No. 67/2007, has challenged the order dated 05-01-2008 passed by the Executing Court/IAddl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Belgaum, on the application filed by the decree holder - first respondent herein under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. The judgement debtor, is a co-operative society. As per the provisions of Section 57 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, it is required to deposit 25% of the net profit as reserve fund. Accordingly, the judgement debtor has deposited the amount with the appellant herein.3. The decree holder - society has obtained an award dated 27-10-2006 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 27,00,000/- with interest from the judgement debtor. In this regard the decree holder had filed an application for attachment and prohibitory order for disbursement of the amount in RFD Account No. ...
Renuka Lakshmi Granites, a Partnership Firm Regstd. Under the Indian P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2776; 2008(2)KCCR1234; 2008(3)AIRKarR390; 2008AIHC2586(Kar)
K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff challenging the Order dated 4.7.2003 passed in O.S. No. 7762/2000 by the XXVII Addl. city Civil Judge, Bangalore whereby the said Court had held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try the said suit and returned the plaint to the appellant-plaintiff for presenting it before the proper court.2. Far the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in the rank assigned to them in the lower Court.3. The case of the appellant-plaintiff is that it is a registered partnership firm which came into existence on 10.4.2000 and the same was registered in the Office of the Registrar of Firms, Bangalore on 24.4.2000. The business of the plaintiff-firm is quarrying and selling of rough granite blocks. The quarrying business was obtained by the first defendant from the fourth defendant in respect of land Sy. No. 14 of Malleharavu village, Molakalmuru Taluk, Chitradurga District for a period of five years with effect from 12.6....
The State by Police Inspector Vs. V. Sejappa S/O. Veeranna, Asst. Exec ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3312; 2008(3)KCCR1433; 2008(4)AIRKarR197
V. Jagannathan, J.1. The State by Lokayuktha Police Inspector has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Spl. Judge, Chitradurga, by which judgment, the trial court had acquitted the respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P.C. Act' in short).2. One N. Ramakrishna retired on 31.10.1997 as special Grade Junior Engineer, well broil Boring Sub-Division of P.W.D., Chitradurga and he approached the respondent/accused V. Sejappa, who was then working as Asst. Executive Engineer in the said office and requested the respondent to issue no objection Certificate which was required to be submitted to the Accountant General's office in order to enable the above said Ramakrishna to get his service benefits namely Leave encashment benefit, D.C.R.G. and settlement of his pension. The complainant Ramakrishna approached the respondent in this regard on 9.12.1997 and ...
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bpl Sanyo Finance Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: [2009]312ITR63(KAR); [2009]312ITR63(Karn)
Deepak Verma, J.1. Heard Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri S. Parthasarathi, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter shall be referred to in short as 'the Act'), is at the instance of the Revenue against the order dated January 31, 2003, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'A' in the respondent's I.T.A. No. 454/ Bang/2002 for the assessment year 1998-99. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this Court, which are reproduced hereinbelow:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the loss on account of forfeiture of share application money of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 32,50,000 is a short-term capital loss for the assessment year 1998-99?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the forfeited share application money o...
H.P. Mudlappa Vs. the Chief Engineer (Electrical), Bescom and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ264; 2008(3)KCCR1511; 2008(5)AIRKarR116; AIR2008NOC2809; 2008AIHC3225(Kar)
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner questioning the correctness of the order dated 30th June, 2003, bearing No. SEE/BC/Appeals/PM-6/NC/324-N31g-15637/381 vide Annexure-L and consequently the draft bill note to the consumer dated 30-10-2002 issued by respondents 5 and 6 (Vigilance), BESCOM, Bangalore in No. SP/VG/AO/915/2002-03 vide Annexure-H and also the demand notice dated 31-10-2002 issued by the 7th respondent in No. AEEE/N3/AAO/REV/SAII7CR-18.3060-63 vide Annexure-J for payment of Rs. 1,42,590/- to the respondents. Further, he has sought for a direction directing respondents 2 to 7 to refund the payment of Rs. 1,42,590/- and also back billing charges of Rs. 64,538/- which was paid by the petitioner under protest subject to the result of the appeals and writ petitions along with 18% interest thereon from 31-10-2002 till the payment of the said amount by allowing this writ petition with exemplary costs.2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the back billing demand notice filed an app...
Spanco Telesystems and Solutions Limited a Company Incorporated Under ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)KarLJ521; 2008(2)KCCR788; 2008(3)AIRKarR15; AIR2008NOC1892
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the counsel for this parties.2. The factual background to this petition is as follows;The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in providing telecommunication systems integration, and information technology services. It is said to undertake turnkey projects in networking, apart from innumerable other services. The petitioner has provided details of the several projects undertaken and successfully executed, to establish its track record. The petitioner has also provided details of the leading companies in the world from whom, the petitioner derives its technology. The Government of India through the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, has under the National E-Governance Action Plan (NEGAP) intended to create a nation-wide net-work and in this endeavour various initiatives and projects are envisaged. In this regard, guidelines for establishing the State Wide Area 'Network have been issued. The ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. by Its Manager Vs. S.R. Prasanna S/O S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: 2008ACJ1375; ILR2008KAR1323; 2008(4)KarLJ48; 2008(2)KCCR672; 2008(3)AIRKarR82; AIR2008NOC1435; 2008ACJ1375
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The insurer of a public service vehicle, aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27-05-2005 in M.V.C. No. 1067/2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-2) (for short 'MACT), has preferred this appeal.2. Cross objection is preferred by the claimant in M.V.C. No. 1067/2000 arraigned as Respondent No. 1 in M.F.A. 9318/2005, calling in question the finding of the MACT attributing contributory negligence of 20% on the part of the deceased and 80% to the driver of the offending motor vehicle, as also for enhancement of compensation.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in the first place, the cross-objection is not maintainable since it is not in dispute that in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, the only ground which is urged is about its non-liability. Having regard to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. v. Balasubramanyam : ILR1990KAR483 holding that the combin...
National Education Foundation (a Regd. Trust) Rep. by Its Trustee, Sri ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Kant111; ILR2008KAR1281; 2008(5)KarLJ43
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Though this matter is posted for orders, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and is disposed of as follows.2. Petitioner in this petition is a registered Trust by name National Education Foundation represented by its Trustee. In this petition, petitioner has sought for a mandamus, directing the respondents to issue the Final Notification regarding the schedule property under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 within the period of one year from the date of publication of corrigendum Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. in the alternative, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents to fake a decision with regard to finalization of the acquisition proceedings regarding the schedule property on or before the expiry of the period of one year from the date of publication of the corrigendum to the Preliminary Notification. Further, petit...
Sri S. Dharmasamrajya, Since Dead by His Lr S.D. Sampath Samrajya Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR1377
ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. The petitioner is before this Court questioning the order dated 18-12-2004 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in Misc. case Nos. 88/2000, 21/2001 and 43/2004. By the said order, the learned District Judge has dismissed the said Misc. Petitions as not maintainable.At the outset, what requires to be noticed is that the petitioner herein no doubt was a respondent in the said proceedings. Though the order passed is by holding that the applications filed therein were not maintainable, the petitioner is aggrieved by the finding of the learned District Judge that the Religious Endowment Act, 1863 (for short the 'Act') has been repealed and therefore an application filed under Section 10 of the said Act is not maintainable. The petitioner is therefore before this Court only on the said question of law seeking correction of the finding rendered by the learned District Judge. Hence, though the applications therein have been dismissed...
Syndicate Bank, a Nationalised Bank Represented by Sri M. Subhash, Dep ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2851; 2008(509)ILLJ283Kant; 2008(5)KLJ681; 2008(2)KCCRSN133; 2008(3)AIRKarR343; 2008LabIC(NOC)873(Kar)
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. Award dated 5th July 2007 in C.R. No. 72/2003 is called in question both by the workman as well as the Management.2. The case of the workman is that, while he was working as a Clerk at Thithimathi branch, it is alleged that on 7.11.2001, the workman abused the customer and also tried to assault him. In connection with the said alleged incident, the workman was suspended on 24.11.2001. Thereafter, he was charge-sheeted on 13.12.2001. In response to the charge sheet, the workman gave his reply and thereafter, an enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer gave a finding holding that, the charge is proved, The Disciplinary Authority considering the findings and the explanation of the workman, passed an order of dismissal.3. Against the order of dismissal, the workman sought for reference of the dispute. The Central Government by order dated 15th December 2003 referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal.4. The Industrial Tribunal held that the enquiry is fair and pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »