Karnataka Court December 2009 Judgments

Siddaramu S/O Sri Komaraiah Vs. the Assistant Commissioner and Prescri ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. The petitioner is before this court assailing the Official Memorandum dated 20.09.2008 in No. RRT(2)CR 290/2008-09 and the order dated 11.08.2009 in No. R.Mis.250/2008-09. The said orders are impugned at Annexures 'D' and 'K' to the writ petition.2. The case of the petitioner is that he has filed Form No. 7-A seeking grant of the land measuring 1 acre 13 guntas in survey No. 533 of Srirangapattana village, Kesaba Hobli. At the first instance the Assistant Commissioner had granted the land in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently the respondents herein questioned the same before the Appellate Tribunal, the same also ended in a writ petition before this court, insofar as the proceedings relating to the claim made by the petitioner in Form No. 7-A, the earlier proceedings have bean set aside and the matter is presently pending before the Authorized Authority/Assistant Commissioner considering the claim put forth by the petitioner.3. The grievance of the petitioner...

N. Lokesh S/O Nanjundappa N. Vs. the Commissioner for Food and Civil S ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The factual matrix of the case that can be summarized is as follows:The petitioner along with respondents 4 & 5 was an applicant for authorisation of distribution of food grains. The Deputy Commissioner after considering the applications granted authorisation in favour of the petitions. The case of the petitioner is that based on the said authorisation and the order of the Deputy Commissioner the 3rd respondent has issued an Official Memorandum issuing necessary orders for distributing the foodgrains. The petitioner claims that he has invested huge amounts and has started a Fair Price Shop and has been running the same by taking delivery of the food commodities right from the date of the grant, that is on 2-9-2009. The petitioner has also made available the commodities distributed to the card holders in the month of October, 2009 along with the rejoinder. The applications of respondents 4 & 5 was rejection the ground that they were incomplete. Aggrieved by the...

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Vs. Jose Alexander

Court: Karnataka

Aravind Kumar, J.1. The revenue is in appeal assailing the order dt.21.2.2003 passed in ITA No. 1038/Bang 95 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench.2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the assessee has been assessed in an individual status for the assessment year 1987-88 on the basis of the return of income filed on 13.3.1989 declaring a total incomes of Rs. 18,800/-. Subsequently, a revised return of income was filed on 30.3.1991 admitting an income of Rs. 23,800/-. There was a search in the premises of the assessee on 30.2.1990 and during the course of the search, the assessee claimed, he had made certain investment and also he was doing Auto consultancy work. Assessment came to be completed under Section 144 by order dt.11.3.1994. The assessee being aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal before the CIT (Appeals), which came to be disposed of by a common order dt.27.9.l925 holding thereunder in respect of the income said to have been earned b...

Davangere Maganur Bassappa and Sons Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Karnataka

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. Sri. Aravind, is directed to take notice for the respondent.2. Heard the counsel for the parties.3. The assesses has come up in this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Assessing officer which has been confirmed by the Commissioner for Income Tax (Appeals) and further affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA No. 1354/Bang/2008 for the assessment year 1999-2000 dt.10.7.2009.4. The facts leading to this case are as hereunder:The assessee is a partnership firm. On account of the dissolution, the assets of the firm are distributed among its partners. Based on the same, the Assessing Officer has calculated the capital gains payable by the assessee. The assessee contended that, it is not liable to pay capital gains. The Assessing officer has rejected the claim of the assessee. In the appeal preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the findings of...

Shri Manjunatha M.N. S/O. Late Nagaraj K.N. Vs. the Director of Munici ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ455

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2009 Annexure-N of the respondents, rejecting his request for appointment on compassionate grounds, consequent upon the death of his father on 01.07.2007 while serving as a driver in the 3rd respondent/City Municipal Council, Tumkur, has presented this petition.2. Indisputably the petitioner's father was a driver on daily wages in the 3rd respondent/City Municipal Council as on 01.07.2007 the date of his death. Although it is contended that the petitioner's father was appointed to a vacant post of driver by drawing from the Employment Exchange, said to be one of the modes of recruitment to permanent posts in the 3rd respondent/City Municipal Council, there is no material to support the contention.3. Recruitment, to vacant posts in the third respondent/City Municipal Council is regulated by the Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Servants) Rules, 1971 (for short, 'the Rules'). Rule 3 provides ...

Sakammanavara Muniyappa (Since Dead) by L.R. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ529

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. The petitioner is calling in question the order dated 28-6-2001 passed by the Land Tribunal. Sidlaghatta Taluk, Sidlaghatta, in Case No. LRM/394/74-75. The said order is impugned at Annexure-Z to the petition. By the said order, the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner seeking occupancy right in respect of the lands bearing Sy. No. 20-F measuring 27 guntas and Sy. No. 20-G measuring 3 acres 20 guntas of Sonnenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk, Kolar District.2. The application in Form 7 was filed by Sakammanavara Muniyappa, the father of the present petitioner claiming occupancy rights in respect of the property stated above. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 18-8-1976 had rejected the claim. The father of the petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 11663 of 1979. This Court quashed the said order and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal. The claim was again rejected by order dated 27-11-1993. The petitioner herein had ques...

Jayamma Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ468

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 5-12-2007 issued by the third respondent, which is impugned at Annexure-B to the petition. The petitioner has also sought for mandamus to direct the third respondent to conduct the survey in accordance with law and to prepare the sketch.2. The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of the property bearing Survey No. 10/1 measuring 1 acre 32 guntas situate at Kengal Kempohalli Village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk. The petitioner claims that the revenue records also stands in the name of the petitioner. However, while carrying out the mutation order, the revenue authorities had wrongly indicated only 35 guntas of land in block No. 3 and in that context, the dispute has arisen. The fourth respondent herein claims right to certain other extents of the property in the very same Survey No. 10/1. It is in that context, there was a suit for injunction between the petitioner and the fourth ...

R.V. Gopalkrishna Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ263

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. The petitioner is calling in question the order dated 30-8-2007 passed in R. Misc. No. 28 of 2005-06. The said order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the same is impugned at Annexure-A to the petition.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the brother of late Gangadhar Menon. The said Gangadhar Menon had owned an extent of 2 acres 19 guntas in Sy. No. 39 of Gavatur Village, Hosanagar Taluk. The said land had been granted to him on 30-4-1986. Out of the said extent of land granted, Sri Gangadhar Menon during his lifetime had sold an extent of 28 guntas to the fourth respondent herein under a sale deed dated 28-5-2002. The remaining extent is said to have been retained by the said Gangadhar Menon. When this was the position. Gangadhar Menon died on 27-11-2002. The petitioner being the natural successor claims right to the property.3. On the other hand, the fourth respondent has claimed right to the said property under a Will dated 1-7-1999. Based on t...

A.V. Amarnathan Vs. the Government of Karnataka, Energy Department and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ331

ORDERH.H. Nagamohan Das, J.1. This writ petition is filed calling in question the order dated 30-7-2009 in O.P. No. 33 of 2003 passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bangalore (for short, 'KERO overruling the objection raised by the petitioner as an Advocate for Karnataka State Small Industries Association (for short, Association').2. It is seen from the record that a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 7-11-2008 in M.F.A. No. 3456 of 2003 and M.F.A. No. 3457 of 2003 filed by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, against KERC remanded the matter to reconsider the claim of the appellant in the said appeals. Pursuant to remand from this Court, KERC issued a public notice and in response to the same, the Association entered appearance before the KERC and filed objections. Before KERC, the petitioner entered appearance as an Advocate for the Association. Further the petitioner in his capacity as an Advocate made a submission to the KERC that on...

Presteege Property Developers Rept. by Its Managaing Partner Mr. Deepa ...

Court: Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J.1. This appeal is filed Under Order 43 Rule 1(R) of CPC against the order on I.A. No. 1 dated 15/12/06 passed in O.S. No. 7198/06 on the file of XXII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, Allowing I.A. 1 Filed Under Ordered XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking for temporary injunction.These appeals having been reserved for orders on 11.11.2009. Coming on for pronouncement this day, the court pronounced the following:JudgmentFacts Relating to M.F.A. No. 4954/2006The appellants herein are the defendants in O.S. No. 17779/2005. The said suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking for judgment and decree to restrain the defendants from infringing the well established trade mark 'PRESTIGE' by using the offending trade mark 'PRESTEEGE' to deceptively take advantage of the reputation of the plaintiff. In the said suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was filed seeking temporary injunction. Since ad-interim injunction was granted, the defendants also filed an applicatio...