Karnataka Court June 2008 Judgments

Kushal Industries Association Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Ta ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2009)19VST20(Karn):2009(1)KCCRSN4

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is by a partnership firm which was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') and which has questioned the revenue recovery proceedings resorted to by the revenue officials at the instance of the officials of the commercial Taxes Department for realizing the sales tax dues payable by the petitioner which was to the tune of Rs. 8,05,284, which is the amount as confirmed in the appellate order passed by the Joint Commissioner of commercial Taxes (Appeals) dated December 15, 2004 (copy at annexure A).The challenge in this writ petition is not only to the legality of the tax liability on the premise that the petitioner is a dealer who had enjoyed the benefit of exemption from levy of tax in respect of its turnover in terms of a Government exemption notification issued under Section 8A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the KST Act') dated June 21, 1991 and being covered by...

In Re: Mysore Cements Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]149CompCas50(Kar)

Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. This application is filed praying for a direction to convene the meeting of the equity shareholders of the applicant-company under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. The applicant has also prayed for dispensation of the meeting of the preference shareholders of the company as the only preference shareholder has given no objection. The applicant has also prayed for dispensation of the meeting of the unsecured creditors.2. The scheme of amalgamation is proposed to amalgamate the transferor company with the applicant-company. For the said purpose a direction is sought from this Court to convene the meeting of the equity shareholders.There is only one preference shareholder who has given a letter of no objection as per annexure M. Hence, the meeting of preference shareholders is dispensed with.3. According to the applicant, the unsecured creditors of the applicant-company are not in any manner affected by the scheme nor is there any compromise of arrangement...

Bindurao Kulkarni. Vs. Sarojini and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KCCR132

(This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 16.02.2006 passed on I.A. No. V in FDP No.9/2003 by the Court of the civil Judge (Senior Division), Athani, Annexure 'J' so far as the same pertains to petitioner's property bearing RS No.1397-c/3B measuring in extent 10 guntas and 15 annas situate within the Municipal limits of the Athani Town in Belgaum District by allowing I.A. No. V filed by the petitioner.)1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.02.2006 rejecting his application filed under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under:The Civil Suit No. 40/1954 instituted by Sri. Rudrappa @ Appasaheb Avati seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of his shares in the agricultural lands and house sites described in the schedule 'A' and 'B' of the plaint. The suit came to be decreed on 27.10.195...

Sri M.S. Chaluvaiah S/O Singraiah Vs. M.C. Krishna S/O M.S. Chaluvaiah ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009CriLJ219; 2009(1)KarLJ153

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment of acquittal in S.C. No. 151/2001.2. Mandya Rural Police charge sheeted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 302 and 201 of IPC.3. Based on the complaint of one M.S. Chaluvaiah dated 26.5.2001, a case was registered in Crime No. 41/2001 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 302 and 201 R/W 149 of IPC. On investigation, the charge sheet was filed. As many as 32 witnesses were cited in the charge sheet. However, the prosecution led the evidence of PW1 to PW19. PW1 and PW2 are the eyewitness. PW4 and PW5 are the punch witnesses, PW6 is the father of the deceased No. 1. PW7 is the witness for seizure mahazar, PW8 and PW9 are the witnesses for the inquest, PW10 is the mother of deceased No. 1, PW11 is the photographer, PW12 is the Police Sub-Inspector who arrested the accused No. 4, PW13 is the doctor who conducted the post mortem, PW14 is the photographer, PW15 is the Head Constable, PW1...

Gemini Distilleries Ltd. Represented by Its Director, Sri Arun Kumar P ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009CriLJ211; 2009(2)KarLJ311; 2008(4)KCCR2181; 2008(6)AIRKarR12

ORDERR.B. Naik, J.1. The accused-petitioners herein are convicted for the offences punishable Under Sections 25 & 26 of the Water Act 1974 ('Act' for short). Accused Nos. 2 to 4 being the Board of Directors/Executives of the 1st petitioner company have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I., for a further period of one month for the aforesaid offences, by the Judgment dated 24.06.2003 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Additional JMFC., Nanjangud in C.C. No. 1303/1999 (old No. 783/1989). On appeal, the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Mysore, by the Judgment dated 27.12.2004 passed in Crl.A. No. 92/2003, set aside the Judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and remanded the matter back to the trial Court with a direction to frame fresh charge against the accused-petitioners herein for an offence Under Section 24 of the 'Act' which i...

K.S. Naganna and anr. Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Limite ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ652

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioners were working in the 1st respondent-Corporation, which formulated a scheme. The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement and the same was accepted. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have not cleared the pensionary benefits within the stipulated time as per the scheme. Hence, they had filed a writ petition before this Court. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to settle the claim in accordance with law within six months from the date of the said order. However, a writ appeal was preferred wherein the question of gratuity arose and a Division Bench of this Court directed that if the authorities have not paid the gratuity, it is open for them to approach the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and it is not for this Court to compute the amount due to them. Thereafter certain calculations have been given and certain amount has also been received by the petitioners. But however, a legal noti...

Cit and anr. Vs. Wipro Infotech Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. These appeals are filed by the CIT and Dy. CIT questioning the correctness of the common order dated 31-7-2002 passed by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 651/Bang/1994, 521, 522, 523/Bang/1997, 369, 370, 461, 462 and 538/Bang/2001 framing two substantial questions of law in the appeals by urging various grounds in support of the same and prayed to set aside the common judgment by answering the same in favour of the revenue. The common substantial questions framed read as under:1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provision made by the assessee for bad and doubtful debt is an allowable deduction ?2. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in holding that Section 80-O deduction should be allowed on the gross income received by the assessee by ignoring the provisions of Section 80AB of the Act which contemplates granting of such a deduction on the amount of income as computed in accordance with provisions of the Act and the judgment of the Calcutta Hi...

Sri Kannikaparameshwari Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR3235; 2008(4)KCCR2726

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking quashing of Annexure-C, the Notification dated 22.9.2005 issued by the 2nd respondent.2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The petitioner contends that the Co-operative Society is not a public authority, as such, the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 is not applicable to the Co-operative Society. It does not come within the meaning of a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Act. In fact, the National Federation of Co-operative Banking has issued clarification to the effect that the Co-operative Banks/Societies are not covered under the R.T.I. Act. The 2nd respondent has issued a Notification dated 22.9.2005 as if the Co-operative Banks or Societies are public authorities. Annexure-C is the said Notification. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the said Notification is abinitio void. Therefore, they sought ...

K.G. Rajashekar Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Secretary, Depa ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR4048; 2009(1)KarLJ36; 2008(4)KCCR2524; 2008(6)AIRKarR195(DB)

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The appellant was respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 9764/2007. The aforesaid Writ Petition was filed by the respondent-4 in this appeal.2. According to the Writ Petitioner, it is a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Society). The appellant herein has borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as loan on 25.11.1994 and he also stood. as surety for one K.R. Ramachandraiah who had also borrowed, a loan of Rs. 5,000/- on 21.10.1994 and that the appellant herein had executed an agreement in favour of the Society giving liberty for it to recover at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month out of his salary through his employer. The Society raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act against the appellant herein for recovery of the loan amount and an award has been passed. Thereafter an order of attachment is also obtained by the Society. Thereafter the society req...

Mallayya Vs. Smt. Mahadevi and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ130; 2008(4)KCCR2444

ORDERArali Nagaraj, J.1. The petitioner herein, who is the husband of the respondent 1 and father of the respondent 2, has challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 12-6-2006 passed in Cri. Misc. No. 22 of 2005 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bijapur, enhancing the maintenance payable by the petitioner herein to the respondent 1 from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 1,000/- per month and from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 800/- per month to respondent 2.2. The brief facts of the case is as under:(a) Respondents 1 and 2 respectively being the wife and son of the petitioner, filed maintenance petition in Cri. Misc. No. 37 of 1992 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basavana Bagewadi, District Bijapur. The said petition came to be allowed and a sum of Rs. 300/- per month and another sum of Rs. 200/- per month was awarded in favour of respondents 1 and 2 respectively towards their maintenance. Thereafter, the respondents filed a petition under Section 127 of the Criminal Pr...