Karnataka Court June 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.
A. Channabasappa and anr. Vs. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Bo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR3524; 2008(5)KarLJ499; ILR2008(3)Kar3524; 2008(5)KLJ499; 2008(3)KCCR2058
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation given by them on 23.08.2006 vide Annexure-C1.2. By Annexure-C1 representation, petitioners have requested the Deputy Commissioner, Davangere District to enhance the compensation for the land bearing Sy. No. 7/2B measuring 5 acres 21 guntas acquired for industrial purpose by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short 'the KIADB'). The petition averments disclose that the land in question among several other lands was proposed to be acquired as per the Notification dated 05.03.2001 issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the KIAD Act'). The petitioners have not furnished further particulars regarding the date when the final declaration came to be issued. The petition averments also disclose that an award has been passed as back as in the year 2004 determining the compensa...
Smt. H.S. Lakshmamma Vs. Sri K.K. Ahammed Kutty and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR3528; 2008(5)KarLJ93; 2008(3)KCCR2114; 2008(5)AIRKarR254; AIR2008NOC2843; 2008(4)CivilLJ823
V. Jagannathan, J.1. Whether purchase of land belonging to a member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe from the Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank in an auction sale is hit the provision of Section 4 of Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('PTCL' for short) is the question involved in this appeal.2. The facts, which are not in dispute, have to be stated first in order to appreciate the points put forward by the learned Counsel for the parties. The said admitted facts are as under:3. One Sri KK Ahammed Kutty (plaintiff) filed the suit in question seeking declaration to the effect that he is the owner of the suit schedule property measuring 3 acres in Sy. No. 320/IA situated in Betoli village of Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District. The said suit property was granted to the 2nd defendant, Smt Lakshmamma, as a saguvali chit was issued on 10.2.1981 by the Tahsildar, Virajpet in her name. The 2nd defendant belongs ...
Harish D.V. S/O Late Doddabbaiah Vs. State by Rural Police Rep. by Spp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)KarLJ480; 2008(3)KCCR2099; 2008(5)AIRKarR367
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. These two revision petitions arise out of common order passed in S.C. Nos. 254/ 2006 and 66/2007 dated 18.12.2007.2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police had filed two separate applications under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. in S.C. No. 254/2006 and 66/2007, inter alia seeking permission of the court to make further investigation in the matter.3. It is alleged that case and counter cases were registered in Cr. No. 190/2006 and 191/2006. The allegation of prosecution is that a group clash took place on 22.7.2006 in Vadagur village and as a result of which two persons died. Both the cases were investigated and two charge sheets were filed against the respective accused. The matter was committed to the Sessions court and on committal case were numbered as S.C. No. 254/2006 and S.C. No. 66/2007.4. M.L.A from the laid District submitted a representation to the State Government seeking further investigation in the matter, on the ground that the investigation has not bee...
K. Hanumanthaiah Vs. Narasimhaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ632
ORDERA.S. Pachhapure, J.1. The complainant has preferred this petition challenging the acquittal of the respondent No. 1 (accused) in respect of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506(b) of the IPC on a trial held by JMFC, Tiptur.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this Revision are as under:There was a land dispute between the petitioner and the accused (first respondent herein) and it alleged by the complainant that on 27-10-2004 around 3 p.m. when he was in front of a shop in APMC yard, the accused abused him in filthy language by holding the collar of his shirt and dragged him on to the ground, fisted on his face and kicked on his stomach, ribs and caused the injuries. Even on the next day at about 4 p.m. when the complainant was taking tea in a tea shop, the accused abused him in filthy language, threatened him by showing a chopper and attempted to assault with a chopper. The said chopper was snatched by one Sadashivaiah and thereafter a ...
Fosroc Chemicals (India) Private Limited Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: (2009)26VST440(Karn)
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the assessee questioning the correctness of the order dated September 4, 2007 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called as, 'the Tribunal', in short) in STA No. 1655/2004 urging various grounds in support of the following questions of law framed in the memorandum of revision petition:(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in passing the order in the manner it did?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in not applying the judgment of this honourable court in the case of Deepam Silk International [2004] 134 STC 337?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the notifications in question issued under the Act cannot be given effect to from the earlier period prior to the date of the notifications?(iv) Whether, o...
G. Krishnaprakash Vs. the State of Karnataka by S.P.P.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR3569; 2008(5)KarLJ719; 2008(3)KCCR1818; 2008(5)AIRKarR197
ORDERR.B. Naik, J.1. I have heard Sri. Shivamurthy, Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. C.H. Jadhav, learned S.P.P., appearing for the respondent-State and perused the material on record.2. The original complainant has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 27.06.2005 passed in crime No. 90/2001 of Arsikere Town Police where under, 'B' report submitted by the police has been accepted. It is just and necessary to note that consequent upon filing of 'B' report the petitioner herein filed a protest petition on 28.04.2003 and in support of his protest petition, apart from examining himself, he examined seven (7) other witnesses. However, at the stage of addressing arguments, counsel for petitioner was not present before the court below, as such, the trial court accepted ' B' report, which came to be challenged on an earlier occasion before this Court in Crl.R.P. 792/2003. This court, by the order dated 29.08.2003 set aside the order passed by the trial court...
Mysore Urban Development Authority by Its Commissioner, Vs. the Income ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)KCCRSN247; 2008(5)AIRKarR360
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is a clear illustration of situations where even the non-assesses under the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act'] can be subjected to harassment by statutory provisions which are provided more to ensure safeguarding of the interest of revenue by obligating distributors of income tax assessable in the hands of the recipients being compelled to deduct certain percentage of amount to be distributed and to be remitted to the credit of the income tax authorities which can virtually act as a payment of advance tax on the part of the recipient.2. The present situation is one seeking to cover payments made by way of compensation on acquisition of certain immovable property in terms of Section 194LA of the Act. This petition is examined for clarifying the legal position in terms of Section 194LA of the Act.3. Writ petitioner is Mysore Urban Development Authority, a statutory authority created under Section 3 of the Karnataka Urban Developm...
Vaijanath Rao S/O Madhavrao Patil and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)KarLJ222
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioners are questioning the order passed by the 2nd respondent, a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'T' and also has sought for a writ of mandamus to respondents 1 to 3 to cancel the entries in the Record of Rights relating to Sy. No. 67/1 measuring 5 acres 8 guntas of Aliabad village, Taluk Bidar, District Bidar, which is made on the basis of the order produced at Annexure 'T'.2. The facts which are germane for the disposal of this writ petition can be summarised as follows:The land in question is Sy. No. 67, which measures 18 acres 17 guntas in total. It is an Inam land. One Smt Waheedunnisa Begum was a tenant of the said land. She made an application for grant of occupancy rights before the Special Deputy Commissioner (Inams) at Gulbarga. Pursuant to Annexure 'A' dated 14.04.1961 an extent of 6 acres and 17 guntas was granted in her favour. The remaining extent of 12 acres and odd also was granted in favour of Smt. Waheedunnisa Begum pursuant to...
Smt. T. Munitayamma and ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2389; ILR2008KAR4023; ILR2008(4)Kar4023; 2008(4)KCCR2761(DB)
Manjula Chellur, J.1. As both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and award passed by the MACT, Bangalore City, in MVC No. 1146/1999, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. MFA No. 423 8/2003 is filed by the claimants in MVC No. 1146/1999 seeking enhancement of compensation being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. MFA No. 4349/2003 is filed by respondent No. 1 in the claim petition namely Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal both on the finding of actionable negligence and on the quantum of compensation awarded.3. During the course of the judgment, the parties will be referred to with reference to their ranking in the Courts below.4. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 claiming to be the wife, two minor daughters and mother of one G. Narayana Reddy, filed claim petition before the Tribunal in MVC No. 1146/1999 seeking compensation ...
Ashu Khare S/O Bal Gangadhar Khare Vs. Medical Council of India by Its ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)KLJ315; 2008(4)KCCRSN291; 2008(5)AIRKarR483; AIR2008NOC2791
ORDERB.V. Nagarathna, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 12.11.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent - University (Annexure-D) and a direction to the 2nd respondent -University to approve the admission of the petitioner to the I year MBBS course for the academic year 2003-04.2. According to the petitioner who is a native of Madhya Pradesh, he has passed Higher-Secondary Certificate Pariksha (10+2) conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Open School, Bhopal in July 2003 with English, Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology and the said course is conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Open School, Bhopal and that the examination conducted by the said Open School grants eligibility for admission to MBBS course as the said examination is equivalent to 10+2 examination. According to the petitioner, he was admitted to the said course in Government Higher Secondary School at Kushmi District, Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh and completed his course in July 2003. He ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »