Karnataka Court July 2008 Judgments
Sri C.V. Sudhindra and ors. Vs. Divine Light School for Blind and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Kant5; ILR2008KAR3983; 2009(2)KarLJ378
ORDERDeepak Verma, A.C.J.1. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.12.2007 passed by the learned II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bangalore, in O.S. No. 1538/05. On the said date, two applications namely I.A. Nos. 18 and 19 came to be considered and disposed of by the learned trial Judge by a common order. The petitioners herein are advocates by profession. It appears that they were engaged by respondent No. 1 (arrayed as defendant No. 7 in the suit) for appearing on its behalf in various cases pending in different Courts.2. Respondent No. 1 - Divine Light School for Blind is running a school for blind children. It also appears that it has several properties in and around Bangalore. Some of the properties are subject matter of litigations and to represent the interest of respondent No. 1, services of the petitioners as advocates were taken and in the present suit the petitioner-advocate was engaged to represent them si...
Tag this Judgment!Achyut and anr. Vs. Smt. Nanda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR87; 2009(1)KarLJ67:2009(1)KCCR352:2009(2)KLJ640:2009(2)AIRKarR21:AIR2009Kar61
ORDER1. In this case, the petitioners have called in question the order on LA. No. 20, dated 1-8-2007 in O.S. No. 22 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Belgaum.2. The petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 and respondent 1 is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 5 are defendants 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the aforesaid suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranking before the Court below.3. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, defendants 1 and 2 have filed their written statement contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable since there is already a mutual partition between the parties in the presence of the elders and that the same has been reduced into writing. Defendant 3 has filed her written statement contending that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and acquired out of joint propert...
Tag this Judgment!Kenchappa High School Vs. the Deputy Director of Public Instructions a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)KarLJ134
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, the petitioner has called in question the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 3-7-2008 withdrawing the recognition granted to it as per the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short, 'the Act').2. Babasaheb Ambedkar Vidyavardhak Sangh (R) has been running the petitioner school at Koul Bazaar, Bellary. The aforesaid school is imparting education from Class I to Class X. It appears that the roof of the school collapsed on 1-7-2008 due to which one of the students was killed and some of the students sustained injuries. In view of the aforesaid incident, the 1st respondent withdrew the recognition granted to the petitioner exercising the power under Section 39 of the Act.3. Sri B.D. Hiremath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the order of the 1st respondent is totally without jurisdiction and in contravention of Section 39 of the Act. It is contended that the 1st respondent has not issued any notic...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. M.N. Dastur and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: [2009]316ITR442(KAR); [2009]316ITR442(Karn)
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the Revenue. The respondent-assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 1994-95. The return filed by the assessee was taken up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer considering the assessee's claim under the head, expenditure in regard to purchase of map litho paper from a concern known as Shri Krishna Paper Concern, Calcutta, disallowed the expenditure of Rs. 8,76,600 on the ground that the representative of the assessee one Mr. K.R. Pradeep who appeared, before the Assessing Officer on February 28, 1997, did not produce any evidence and that K.R. Pradeep in writing admitted that he is not in a position to produce any evidence in support of the claim for purchasing paper from Shri Krishna Paper Concern. Accordingly, the same was disallowed. Aggrieved, by the order of assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) w...
Tag this Judgment!G. Ramaiah Vs. Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR4153; 2009(1)KarLJ631; 2008(4)KCCR2401
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioner has sought for quashing the award dated 8.5.1991 Annexure-H and also to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the mutation entry dated 4.5.2007 Annexure-J.2. According to the petitioner, land in question was acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for grant of Houses Sites Act, 1972 to the extent of 2.00 acres in Sy.No. 146 of Mandiganahalli Village, Magadi Taluk. The preliminary Notification was issued on 17.3.1979 and the final Notification taking possession of the land is dated 4.9.1979. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even after eleven years, the award has not been passed and it came to be passed on 8.5.1991. Hence, the petition on the ground that Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act contemplates the passing of the award within two years.3. Heard the Counsel representing the parties.4. It is the submission of the petitioner's Counsel that the Apex Court has held that if the award is no...
Tag this Judgment!Finolex Cables Limited and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ448; 2008(4)KCCRSN287
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioners 1 to 3 are owners and consignors of certain goods which are being transported and operated by the fourth respondent-carrier and which goods to the misfortune of the petitioners was found in the company of some tainted excisable goods liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act').2. The authorities under the Act having under a mahazar seized even the non-excisable non-dutiable goods belonging to the petitioners and for release of such goods having imposed the condition that the petitioners if are seeking for release of the goods pending adjudication proceedings for confiscation in terms of Section 43 of the Act, have to furnish Bank guarantee for value of the goods seized, petitioners have approached this Court praying for the relief to quash the very seizure.3. Petitioners have questioned the legality of the act of seizure as one without jurisdiction for the reason that the goods be...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Y. Lalitha Holla and ors. Vs. the Recovery Officer and Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ493; 2008(6)AIRKarR388; AIR2009NOC115
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioners in this writ petition are persons who had stood as guarantors, guaranteeing repayment of a loan borrowed by M/s. Mushti Designs Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director, M. Arunkumar, who had borrowed certain sums from the first respondent-Bangalore District and Bangalore Rural District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Chamarajapet, Bangalore.2. The borrower having failed to repay the amount with interest etc., the Bank had raised a dispute, the matter went before Arbitrator and resulted in passing an award in favour of the Bank, jointly against the borrower and the petitioners-guarantors.3. The first respondent-Bank which had levied execution for realising the awarded amount, initially against the assets of the borrower by attaching the plant and machinery, which had been secured in favour of the Bank for repayment of the loan, and on noticing that the offers by the bidders to purchase the machinery part, the best offer being ...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)KarLJ639
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. Appellant herein is challenging the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 17384 of 2005, dated 11-7-2005. Facts leading to this case are as hereunder 3 acres of land in Sy. No. 26/P of Huluginakatte Village of Shikaripur Taluk was granted to appellant under temporary order of grant in the year 1964 subject to the condition he shall not part with or alienate for a period of 15 years and according to the appellant grant has been later confirmed by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Sagar Sub-Division dated 13-5-1974. Appellant filed a revision under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Assistant Commissioner, Sagar Sub-Division in RA No. 15/1999-2000 challenging the revenue entries made in the name of respondent 4 in respect of the land in question. Though the appeal was filed by the appellant challenging the revenue entries made in the name of respondent 4, instead of considering the ...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Khan S/O Ismail Khan Vs. Senior Divisional Manager Lic of India j ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR698; 2009(2)KarLJ273; 2009(1)AIRKarR21
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Senior Branch Manager in the cadre of Class-I Officer with the first respondent, Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, 'the Corporation'). The case made out by the petitioner is that he voluntarily retired from service on 07.11.1991 due to some domestic and personal reasons. This petition is filed for the relief to declare that the age of the officer to be 55 years at the time of voluntary retirement under Regulation 19(2)(a) to be ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 16(1), 21, 39(d) and 41 of the Constitution of India and further declare the respondent Corporation to grant commutation amount of the pension and to pay pension from the date of his retirement on 01.11.1993 with all consequential benefits.2. The facts germane for the disposal of this case can be stated in brief as follows:The petitioner, as stated earlier, was a Class-I Officer, Due to some domestic problems, he proposes ...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Kamalamma Vs. Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ658
ORDERDeepak Verma, Ag.C.J.1. Heard Sri C.B. Srinivasan, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Rameshchandra, learned Counsel, Sri T.N. Raghupathy and Sri M.R. Rajagopal, learned Counsel appearing for the respective petitioners and Sri K. Krishna, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. As common questions of law on similar facts are involved in the aforesaid matters, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order. These petitioners had filed three connected writ petitions in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the notices dated 6-12-1997 and 12-12-1997 marked as Annexures-B and D respectively issued by the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority ('the BDA' for short). The further prayer was made for issuance of writ of mandamus for considering the case of the petitioners for reallotment/reconveyance of sites. The aforesaid petitions were consolidated for hearing and by a common order the matter came to be dispos...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »