Karnataka Court March 2008 Judgments
S.K. Venkata Reddy Vs. the High Court of Karnataka by Its Registrar Ge ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2808; 2008(5)KarLJ659; 2008(3)KCCRSN182; 2008(4)AIRKarR266; 2008LabIC3320(Kar)
ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the communication dated 11.1.1999 the remarks recorded in the confidential record of the petitioner for the year 1998 by the respondents.2. Petitioner was appointed as District Judge on 16.4.1988 under Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1983 (for short 'Rules 1983'). The petitioner worked as District Judge in various districts in the state of Karnataka. From 16.1.1996 to 20.1.1997 the petitioner worked as Registrar (Vigilance) of High Court of Karnataka. Further from 21.1.1997 to 4.6.1998 petitioner worked as Secretary to Government, Law Department, Bangalore. The High Court of Karnataka vide notification dated 2.6.1998 has withdrawn the services of the petitioner as Secretary to Government, Law Department and posted him as District Judge, Leave reserve in the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. Accordingly, the petitioner reported for duty on 4.6....
Tag this Judgment!Sri K. Basavaraja Vs. the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2733; 2008(5)KarLJ537; ILR2008(3)Kar2733; 2008(5)KLJ537; 2008(3)KCCR1800; 2008(4)AIRKarR344; 2008LabIC(NOC)1041(Kar)(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The petitioner is a practising Advocate. According to the petitioner, he belongs to Lingayath community which is a Backward Community eligible for reservation under category III(B) as per Government Order No. SWD 126 BCA 2002 dated 13.2.2003. He also claims that he is entitled to the benefit of reservation available to Rural Candidates as he had completed his education up to S.S.L.C. in a rural area. He further claims that he is also entitled to claim the benefit of reservation available to candidates who have completed their education in Kannada medium.2. The respondent - Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka issued Annexure-F Notification dated 1st April 2006 inviting applications for direct recruitment to 232 posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division). According to Annexure-F Notification, the applicant must be holder of a Degree in Law granted by a University established by law in India and must have been enrolled as an Advocate. As on the last date fixed fo...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. G.D. Dengi and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ168; 2009(5)KarLJ630; 2008(3)KCCRSN183; 2008(4)AIRKarR259; 2008LabIC3317(Kar)
K. Ramanna, J.1. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act challenging the judgment and award dated 26.3.2003, passed in WCA/SR/450/2000 on the file of the Labour Officer and Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bijapur.2. Substantial question of law involved in this appeal is, whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is justified in holding that there is a relationship of master and servant in between respondent No. 1 and the deceased. If so, whether the appellant is liable to indemnify the respondent No. 1?3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 is the wife of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of Maruti car bearing No. MH 13-F 0504. The deceased Umesh Dengi was the son of respondents and he was working as driver under the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 filed a claim petition claiming that the deceased Umesh met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries during the course of employment. There...
Tag this Judgment!Kodi Nagappa Since Deceased by His Lrs. and ors. Vs. Smt. Hampamma Sin ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR3485; 2008(6)KLJ420; 2008(43)AIRKarR523; AIR2008NOC2321
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This is a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the tenant, now represented by his legal heirs, who had suffered an eviction order in the eviction petition instituted against him by the respondent landlord in HRC No 38 of 1996, on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr Dn) & JMFC, Bellary, in terms of the order dated 20-11-2000, and had been directed to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession under the provisions of Section 21(1)(h) and 21(1)(k) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, the 1961 Act).2. The legal heirs of tenant though had preferred a revision petition in HRCR No. 7 of 2002, on the file of Principal District Judge, Bellary, and though succeeded in getting over the order of eviction passed by the Court of first instance, in terms of the order dated 17-3-2005,were nevertheless caught in the web of Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, the 1999 Act), which enactment ...
Tag this Judgment!Titan Industries Limited Represented by Its Law Officer Mr. Srinivasa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ391; 2008(6)AIRKarR173
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 15.5.2006 in ID No. 63/2005. The respondent was working as a driver. Ha was charge sheeted for unauthorisedly removing the Co. Car at about 8.45 P.M on 31.12.1994 and thereafter got 50 Liters of Petrol filled for the vehicle and using the said vehicle unauthorisedly for about 100 Kms. consuming 40 Liters of Petrol till 2.1.1995. In this regard, the inquiry officer submitted a detailed report as per Annexure-C inter-alias holding that in terms of the admission made by the respondent that, ha was on duty and he had taken the vehicle at about 4.30 P.M at the direction of one Kamalapathy and got filled 50 Liters of Petrol held that the charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and also on consideration of the reply given by the respondent found that the respondent is guilty of misconduct and imposed an order of dismissal.2. The respondent raised a dispute befor...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Agencies Represented by Its Manager Shri Ashok Kumar S/O Sri Puk ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR4299; 2008(6)AIRKarR16(DB)
1. The appellant herein has challenged the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court doted 2.4.2007 passed in W.P. No. 5507/07, declining to interim with the combined reassessment and penalty orders dated 29.1.2007 (vide Annexure-A and A-1 to A-6) for the months from April 2006 to October 2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Audit-43, DVO-4 (hereinafter referred to as 'Assessing Authority' for short) assessing the tax on the turn over relating to sales of Mosquito repellants at 12.5% under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'KVAT Act' for short).2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:(a) The appellant herein has been a proprietary concern and also a commission agent of M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Limited, which has been manufacturing and marketing household insecticides under license obtained under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rules, 1971. The appellant has been selling Mosquito repellants manuf...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-2008
Reported in: [2009]316ITR345(KAR); [2009]316ITR345(Karn); (2008)218CTR(Kar)273; 2008AIRSCW1287; 2008(2)SCC475.
Deepak Verma, J.1. Heard Sri Aravind Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri G. Sarangan, learned senior counsel for the respondent. This order shall also govern disposal of I.T.A. No. 481 of 2003, which is between the same parties. The factual aspect and legal scenario in both the appeals being similar, we have heard learned Counsel for the parties in these appeals, analogously and dispose of both the appeals by this common order.2. The Revenue is before us by filing these appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter shall be referred to in short as 'the Act'), against the order dated July 29, 2003, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore 'A' Bench, in the assessee's appeals I.T.A. No. 50/Bang/1997 and I.T.A. No. 127/Bang/1997 for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95, respectively. The appeals were also admitted on the substantial questions of law which have been formulated by the Revenue in its appeal, but after having heard learned...
Tag this Judgment!K. Thimmegowda Vs. B.S. Nagaraj Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2753; 2009(1)KarLJ233; 2008(4)KCCR2452; 2008(5)AIRKar400; AIR2008NOC2823
N. Kumar, J.1. This is the defendant's second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the plinth area of the schedule property is more than 14 Sq. Meters and therefore, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is not applicable and hence, the defendant is liable to be ejected from the schedule property.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.3. The subject matter of the suit is a shop premises bearing No. 6 comprised in Sathyaprakash building/complex bearing K.Ho.4488 and A.R. No. 5693, situated at Bus stand road, Hassan City.4. The plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property. The defendant is a tenant of the schedule premises. A lease deed came to be entered into between the parties on 1.6.1987. The rent was fixed at Rs. 600/-. It was a monthly tenancy. The plaintiff filed HRC No. 37/1989 under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 for eviction of the defendant. In view of Sec...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Suryanarayana Rao Vs. Smt. Hidayuthunnissa Begum and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ8; 2008(3)KCCR1562; 2008(4)AIRKarR250; 2008LabIC(NOC)61(Kar)
ORDERA.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Sri B. Sanjeevaiah S/o. Narasappa, had instituted O.S. No. 39 of 1958, on the file of the Munsiff at Chitradurga, against Sri Vulavaramuthuru, for judgment and decree of declaration that the suit schedule properties were purchased from Sri Thimmegowda in the name of defendant, benami for the defendant on 4-7-1946 and the defendant is bound by the agreement to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff after the discharge of the debt by the plaintiff to the defendant. A direction was also sought to the defendant, to execute a sale deed. During the pendency of the suit B. Sanjeevaiah having passed away, his L.Rs, have prosecuted the suit. By judgment and decree dated 23-2-1967, suit was dismissed, against which R.A. No. 36 of 1967 was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Chitradurga. The said appeal was transferred to the Court of District Judge, Chitradurga, wherein it was renumbered as R.A. No. 5 of 1969.2. During the pendency of the appeal, Mysore Agricul...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. G.K.S. Shankar Vs. Smt. Puttarevamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2790; 2008(3)KCCR2067; 2008(5)AIRKarR228; AIR2008Kar173
ORDER 13 RULE 7(2) - RETURN OF DOCUMENT NOT ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE - Though Order 13 Rule 7(2) of CPC provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act overrides the said provision - It is not permissible for the Court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act.Writ Petition Dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »