Karnataka Court February 2009 Judgments

S.R. Narayana Murthy Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society, Bang ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KarLJ294; 2009(2)KCCR1436; 2009(4)KLJ294; AIR2009NOC2324; 2009(4)AIRKarR196

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a member of second respondent-House Building Cooperative Society Limited, who is fighting with his back to the wall to retain the membership of the society against the intention of the society and its committee of the management as well as the General Body to dismember the petitioner from the membership of the society.2. Present writ petition is in the wake of such tussle between the petitioner and society and for getting over an order passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 567 of 2008, as a single Member of the Tribunal has in terms of an order dated 17-9-2008 dismissed the appeal, appeal had been preferred under Section 105 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, aggrieved with the view taken by the Joint Registrar of Societies in terms of his order dated 19-5-2008 passed in dispute No. JRB/MD/29/07 before him, holding that the dispute itself was not maintainable.3. Petitioner had raised the dispute before the R...

Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Mcdowel and Company Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009[16]STR258; [2010]24STT394

ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This review petition is filed by the department seeking to review the order dated 26-5-2008 passed in C.E.A. 42/2006 placing reliance upon Sections 116 and 117 of Finance Act, 2000 and the decision reported in : 2006 (3) S.T.R. 608 (S.C.) : 2005 (182) E.L.T. 33 (S.C.) - Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Union of India. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Section 117 of the Act which validated the action taken by the Department from 16-7-1997 and ending with the day on which the Finance Act, 2000 received the assent.2. There is a delay of 1 day in filing this review petition and I.A.I./08 is filed to condone the same.3. As could be seen, action was taken by the department on 18-1-2000 which is earlier to the day of receiving assent on 12-5-2000 to the above amended provisions of the Finance Act, therefore Section 117(1) of the Act has no application to the facts of the case. Applying the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 365 the ...

SachIn Vs. State by State Public Prosecutor

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ324

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioner has sought for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 160 of 2008 of Tilakwadi Police Station for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.2. Complaint came to be filed by the father of the deceased stating that the marriage of the petitioner had taken place with the deceased Deepa on 5-6-2006 at Belgaum. At the time of marriage, gold and other articles were given and also marriage expenses were borne by the complainant. After marriage, the deceased went to lead marital life. After some time, it is alleged that her mother-in-law and husband started harassing for petty reasons. When she visited her parental house and complained of the same, she was advised. It is alleged, since his son-in-law/petitioner intended to open a hospital, petitioner and his mother demanded Rs. 10 lakhs financial assistance and in this regard, Rs. 2,50,000/- was given and the complainant had agreed to...

Fiza Developers and Inter-trade Private Limited Vs. Amci (India) Priva ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ545:2009(1)AIRKarR29:AIR2009Kar20.

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. Short question that arises for our consideration in this writ appeal is whether in a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') a Civil Court is required to frame an issue as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. Petitioner herein had filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Arbitration Suit No. 53 of 2005 against the respondents to set aside the award dated 14-9-2005 passed by Justice K. Shivashankar Bhat. The said suit is contested by the contesting respondents. An award is passed against the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 57,60,00,000/- with interest on the above amount from 1-4-2005 till the date of award along with costs and stamp duty and also awarded future interest at 12% p.a. from the date of award till the date of judgment.3. In the suit, appellant filed an application under Order 14, Rules 1 and 3 of the CPC requesting the ...

The Karnataka Milk Federation by Its Managing Director Vs. the State o ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ522; 2009(4)KCCRSN264; 2009(5)AIRKarR214; AIR2009NOC2826

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. These two writ petitions are by a Co-operative Society known as Karnataka Milk Federation and represented by its Managing Director in WP No. 14153/2008 and by persons who are either in the management of this Federation or as the majority of the Management Committee of the very Federation, for the common object of quashing two orders mainly the order dated 3.11.2008 or the communication of this date originating from the State Government and addressed to the Director of Co-operative Audit (copy produced as Annexure-G to the Writ Petition No. 14153/2007), calling upon the Director to become active in respect of the transaction of the 1st petitioner-Federation for the year 2001-2002 to 2007-2008 and in exercise of the powers of the Director of Co-operative Audit available under Section 63 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) and also for quashing the consequential order dated 5.11.2008 No. Tha.P...

Ms. Belle Ravivarma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KarLJ724

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The petitioner - a law student - has filed the above public interest litigation, seeking a writ of certiorari declaring the advertisements issued by the respondent herein carrying the name and photograph of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, as unconstitutional, illegal and void and also seeking a writ to forebear the Union of India and all its instrumentalities from issuing advertisements for whatsoever purpose, carrying the name and the photograph of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, and to issue a mandamus to the respondent-Union of India to initiate an enquiry and fix the responsibility of the persons who are responsible for issue of such advertisements, direct the expenditure incurred in issuing the advertisements to be recovered from the person responsible for issue of such advertisements in all the newspapers, electronic media etc. An interim prayer is also made seeking issue of temporary injunction to restrain the Union of India or/and all its instrumentalities from issuing any adverti...

Deccan Aviation Limited Vs. G.E. Commercial Aviation Services Ltd. and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR1466; 2009(6)KarLJ475

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The appellants were the applicants in Company Application No. 893/2008 and 1081/2008. The respondents filed company Application No. 888/2008. All these applications were filed in Company Petition No. 47/2008.2. Learned Company Judge by clubbing all the applications disposed of by a common order dated 16.1.2009.3. Challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Learned Company Judge, these appeals are filed by the appellants.4. M/s Deccan Charters Limited filed a Company Petition 45/2008, M/s Kingfisher Airlines Limited filed a Company Petition 46/08 and M/s Deccan Aviation Limited filed a Company Petition 47/08. All the three petitions were filed Under Section 391 and 394 of the Companies Act requesting the Company Court to sanction the amended composite Scheme of Arrangement proposed by the appellant company so as to bind on the equity shareholders and creditors. The Company petitions were allowed by the Company Judge and the amended Composite ...

Smt. Saraswathi Shetty Vs. Smt. Lakshmi @ Bommi and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR1783; 2009(4)KarLJ558

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner is the owner of immovable property in survey No. 293-1A, measuring 74 cents and that it is punja land. It is claimed that it was granted to the petitioner on 24.12.1957. It is contended that one Kinjanna Moolya was a tenant under the petitioner in respect of survey No. 180-1 OB, measuring 4 cents, 180-13 measuring 34 cents, 180-18A, measuring 29 cents, 180-27, measuring 1 acre 89 cents and 180-24A measuring 4 cents.2. It transpires that the said Moolya had filed an application in Form No. 7, in respect of the above lands, while including the land in survey No. 293-1A, measuring 30, in respect of which, he was not at all a tenant. The petitioner would emphasize that it was not leased to the said Moolya. The land was not even fit for cultivation. The condition mentioned in the Grant order, in favour of the petitioner, itself would indicate that it was not fit for cultivation. However, the...

The Public Information Officer and Secretary, Shrimad Raghavendra Co-o ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ299

ORDERMohan Shanthanagoudar, J.1. Heard Sri Amol Marate, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Sri KB. Adhyapak, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents and perused the material on record.2. By the impugned order vide Annexure-D, dated 25-9-2007, the respondent 1 has directed the petitioner to provide certain information.3. Petitioner is a Co-operative Society. As has been held by this Court in number of judgments, including the one reported in the case of Dattaprasad Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Bangalore v. Karnataka State Chief Information Commissioner, Bangalore and Anr. : 2009(1) Kar. L.J. 641 : 2008(4) KCCR 2357, the Right to Information Act, 2005 is not applicable to Co-operative Societies, inasmuch as, Co-operative Societies cannot be treated as a public authority. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner-Society is neither owned nor funded or controlled by the State. In view of the same, the impugned order cannot be s...

S.L. Prasad S/O. Late Sham Prasad Vs. the State of Karnataka, Revenue ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard Sri. L. Govindaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Government Advocate for respondents.2. The unsuccessful petitioner in W. P. No. 48721/2004, decided by the learned single Judge on 24.11.2007, has preferred this Writ Appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The appellant/ petitioner had approached the Writ Court by filing a Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashment of the stipulation as to the payment of non-refundable goodwill sum under the Government order dated 11.4.2001 (Annexure-D).3. A thumb nail sketch of the facts of the case is as under: The appellant is in possession and occupation of a certain immovable, property belonging to the Muzarai Department, under a least, which stood terminated by efflux of time on 14.8.1985. Admittedly, the appellant is carrying on his business activities from the said piece of land. The learned Single Judge by his order dated ...