Karnataka Court September 2008 Judgments

Karnataka International Educational Trust (Regd.) Vs. the Bangalore Un ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR4738; 2009(4)KarLJ320; AIR2009NOC2078

ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, the petitioner has sought for quashing the endorsement dated 7.8.2008 bearing No. ACA-3-HO-Sum.MED:KIET:2008-09 (Annexure 'G') issued by the first respondent-University and for a direction to the University to accord affiliation to the petitioner for imparting instructions at its K.I.E.T. College of P.G. and Research in Education, Bangalore, for M.Ed. course and for certain other reliefs.2. Brief facts of the case are as under:The petitioner is a registered Trust, which has been catering to the educational needs of the students admitted to its various institutions. The petitioner has established a college for imparting instructions in B.Ed. course from the academic year 2006-2007. The petitioner has made an application to the Southern Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education (the third respondent herein) to grant recognition for M.Ed course with an annual intake of 25 students for the academic year 2008-2009. The third re...

Cauvery theatre, Rep. by Its Proprietor and ors. Vs. Union of India (U ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2009)25VST81(Karn)

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioners are all exhibitors of cinematograph shows and are owners of theatres where such cinematograph shows are arranged for public viewing by collecting an entrance fee.2. The state of Karnataka has enacted the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act, 1958 [Karnataka Act No 30 of 1958] (for short, the Act), which enables the state government to levy and collect a tax known as entertainment tax at a percentage of the admission charges charged by the theatre owners on the viewers who come to the theatres to watch movies. Section 3 of the Act, which is the charging Section, which reads as under:3. Tax on payments for admission to entertainments - (1) There shall be levied and paid to the State Government entertainments tax on each payment for admission excluding the amount of tax, to an entertainment.-(a) specified in Sub-clause (i) of Clause (e) of Section 2 at 70 per cent of such payment; and(b) specified in Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (e) of Section 2 at 40 ...

The Divl. Controller Chief Custodian of Internal Insurance Fund, Insur ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010ACJ438:AIR2009NOC611(D.B):2009(1)KCCR182:2009(1)AIRKarR137

1. Sri F.S. Dabali, learned Counsel appeared for the claimants and Sri S. Srishaila, learned Counsel appeared for respondent No. 5, Sri Marigowda, learned Counsel appeared for respondent No. 3, Insurance Company. None appeared for respondent No. 2.2. This order shall also govern disposal of connected appeal as both have been preferred against the same award passed by M.A.C.T., Mandya on 13.01.2003 in M.V. Case No. 811/97 (Smt. K.C. Roopa and Ors. v. Divisional Controller and Ors.),3. Certain material facts of the case in nut shell are as under:Deceased Shivanna had come to Bangalore on 07.05.1997, for the purposes of selling vegetables at Sri Vinayaka Mandi Market. After selling vegetables he started for his home in a car bearing No. GDE 572 along with others. It was being driven by its driver and belonged to respondent No. 2 V.K. Babu and was insured with respondent No. 3 United India Insurance Co., Ltd. The car was travelling on Bangalore-Mysore road and it was being driven in a rash...

Kempanarasimhaiah Alias Kemparaju S/O Late C. Narasimhaiah Vs. P. Rang ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009CriLJ1228:2008(5)KCCR3371:2009(1)AIRKarR431:AIR2009NOC955

ORDERArali Nagaraj, J.1. These Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 773 to 778/2007 are filed by the same petitioner who is accused in C.C. Nos. 1530 to 1533, 18573 and 18574 of 2004 on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short) challenging the legality and correctness of the judgments and orders of conviction and sentence separately passed in the said cases on the same date i.e. 8.3.2006 convicting him for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.I. Act' for short) and sentencing him to pay various amounts of fine and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months in each of the said cases.2. Challenging the said judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the said trial Court in the said cases, the petitioner herein had filed Cr. I.A. Nos. 607/2006 to 612/2006 respectively before the Court of Sessions Judge (F...

A. Aswathaiah S/O H.B. Bachappa, Assistant Conservator of Forests, Chi ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR797; 2009(3)KarLJ300; 2009(1)KCCR262

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No. 3511/2008 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short, the Tribunal) is the writ petitioner herein.2. The Tribunal by its order dated 15.9.2008 dismissed the Application filed by the writ petitioner where he had challenged the proceedings dated 25.7.2008 passed by Respondents 1 and 2 transferring the petitioner, who was working in the Forest Department, as Assistant Conservator of Forests, Chintamani subdivision, Chintamani was transferred to Karnataka Forest Development Corporation, Bangalore.3. The challenge to the said order of transfer dated 25.7.2008 was made mainly on the ground that the writ petitioner- applicant being a government servant cannot be transferred to the Corporation, a foreign service, in place of the 3rd respondent, against his will. The 1st respondent sustained the order dated 25.7.2008 placing reliance on the first proviso to Rule 419A of Karnataka Civil Service Rules.4. ...

R.K. Corporation Vs. Government of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2009)21VST386(Karn)

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner in this petition is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing of annexure C, the clarification dated December 11, 2007 and in the alternative for a declaration that it would apply prospectively and not retrospectively.2. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He is a commission agent carrying on the business as a distributor for sale of aluminum composite panel among other products. In order to have an absolute clarity on the aspect of the appropriate rate of tax applicable on the sale of goods he filed an application under Section 59(4) of the Act to the second respondent requesting for clarification of the rate of tax applicable on aluminium composite panel and PVC flexible film on December 8, 2005. Along with the application he also enclosed copies of the bill of entries relating to import of these goods in which the commodity imported ...

Sri Jagadish Chidanand Kore Vs. the State of Karnataka by Chikodi Poli ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3734

ORDERC.R. Kumaraswamy, J.1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Sessions Case No. 52/2007 pending on the file of the Fast Track Court and IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum.2. The case of the petitioner is as under:The petitioner was arrested in Crime No. 293/2006 of Chikodi Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 307, 506 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. He has been injudicial custody for more than 21 months without trial, for no fault of him. After investigation of the case, the Police have laid the chargesheet against the petitioner and 2 others for the offence punishable under Section 452, 307, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3, 5 read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. After the chargesheet is filed, case is committed to Court of Sessions and ...

Bharath Electronics Ltd. Represented by Its General Manager (Hr) Vs. S ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KCCRSN22; 2009(2)AIRKarR129(D.B)

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the order dated 17th March, 2008 made in Writ Petition No. 46828/2002 laid by the respondent-workman where the learned single Judge set aside the award dated 8.5.2002 in A.I.D No. 406/2001 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore, wherein the order dated 25.8.1992 passed by the appellant-Management, dismissing the respondent-workman from service, was confirmed. The learned Single Judge further directed the Management to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and 40% backwages from 25.8.1992.2. The facts of the case, in brief are:The Managing Director of the appellant-company, invoking Standing Order 15A of the Certified Standing Orders of the company, by order dated 25.8.1992, dismissed the respondent-workman from service with effect from 25.8.1992 for the following reasons:(i) As evidenced from the xerox copy of the agreement of sale-Ex. M4 entered between the respondent-workman and one Sri Eram...

Sri Bharathi Warehousing Corporation Represented by Its Power of Attor ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)AIRKarR398; AIR2009NOC944

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioners 1 and 2 in this petition are firms represented by their Power of Attorney Holder. In this petition, petitioners have sought for setting aside the impugned order dated 30th June 2008 made on I.A.IV on the file of the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 40/2007 and to award the costs of this petition and further to grant such other reliefs, as this Court may deem fit to pass, in the circumstances of the case.2. Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs -petitioners herein are registered partnership firms and defendants - respondents, by falsely representing, assuring and undertaking that they would transfer, convey and invest in the plaintiffs - petitioners a clear and marketable title to property situate at Doddakallasandra village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore induced the two plaintiffs -petitioners to part with a sum of Rs. 01,44,23,500/-(Rupees One Crore Forty Four Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundr...

Hari D. Ankolikar S/O. Dhaku Krishna Ankolikar Vs. the Director Genera ...

Court: Karnataka

Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. In this writ petition filed in public interest, a direction is sought to respondents 1 to 3 to upgrade Model ESI Hospital, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, with all modern equipments including I.C. Unit and sufficient supply of necessary drugs and for other consequential reliefs.It is contended by the petitioner that ESI Hospital, Rajajinagar, Bangalore is functioning since 1961; It is located in a convenient place and easily accessible to all the routes of buses; The said hospital was being run by the Government of Kamataka till 2003; thereafter the Hospital is taken by the ESI Corporation on 1.4.2003 as part of Model Hospital Scheme as is done in every State of our Nation.2. The respondents have appeared through their respective advocates.3.1. Heard.3.2. Every reasonable man on the earth wishes to have good health and tries to maintain it till his last breath. There cannot be any doubt that health is wealthier than wealth.3.3. Certain of the famous personalities of ...