Karnataka Court February 2009 Judgments

Sree Rama Areca Nut Traders Vs. Areca Processing and Marketing Co-oper ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KarLJ645

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 10232 of 2008 is assailing the correctness of the order dated 18-6-2008 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petition No. 28 of 2008, vide Annexure-N and also the order dated 10-12-2007, passed by the 2nd respondent, on I.A. No. I, in Dispute No. DRS:DIS-494/01-02, vide Annexure-M.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 10230 of 2008 is assailing the correctness of the order dated 18-6-2008 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petition No. 29 of 2008 vide Annexure-N and also the order dated 10-12-2007 passed by the 2nd respondent on I.A. No. I in Dispute No. DRS:DIS:493/2001-02 vide Annexure-M.3. In these two petitions, first respondent-Society has raised disputes before the 2nd respondent in Dispute No. DRS:DIS:494:2001-02 and in No. DRS:DIS:493:2001-02. In the said disputes, 2nd respondent has filed I.A. No. I under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in raising the said disputes. Th...

M.S. Shivashankar Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ130; 2009(3)KCCR2175; 2009(4)AIRKarR158; AIR2009NOCKar2261

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions have challenged the notification issue by the Government bringing property for sale under the provisions of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question involved is purely question of law. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 2292 of 2009 Sri M.S. Shivashankar contends that his mother Smt. M.S. Saraswathamma purchased the schedule property, a BDA vacant site bearing No. 28 situated at H.S.R. Layout, Sector-I, Begur Hobli, Bangalore, under a registered sale deed dated 27-3-2006 for a consideration of Rs. 17.00 lakhs as per Annexure-B. Her name was entered in the encumbrance certificate, she was put in possession, katha was transferred in her name and she was paying the property tax till her death. She had put up a construction on the sch...

Suo Motu Vs. the Chief Secretary Government of Karnataka and the Chair ...

Court: Karnataka

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. Heard Mr. Surendra Desai, learned Senior Counsel who appears on behalf of Mr. D.L. Jagadish who has filed vakalath on behalf of Mr. H.D. Deve Gowda on whose letter dated 08.01.2009 suo motu public interest litigation was initiated. The letter along with the book by name of 'Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project - a Case Study in Fraud and Collusion to defeat the ends of justice and defraud courts' published by Legal Cell, Janata Dal (Secular) Kamataka State Unit, Bangalore was enclosed with the said letter dated 08.01.2009.2. Mr. Ashok Haranahalli appears for respondents-1 to 3 and 9, Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate appeal's for M/s King & Partridge on behalf of respondents-4 and 5, Sri S.G. Kulkarni appears for respondent No. 7 and Sri B.K. Srinivasa Gowda appears for respondent No. 8. Even though notice is served on respondent No. 6 - Union of India, we are of the considered opinion that the 6threspondent is not a necessary party.3. Mr. Desai...

Ramakka W/O Lata Dasappa (Since Deceased by Her Lrs. Sri Sitaramaiah S ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. It is seen from the records that W.P. No. 17699/2003 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 20th November 2008. For recalling the said order, an application came to be filed by the petitioners, which also came to be dismissed for default on 13.1.09. Since none appeared for the petitioners on 13.1.09, Misc.W.456/2009 is filed for recalling the order dated: 13.1.2009. Today also, none appeared for the petitioners. In normal course, the Court would have dismissed Misc.W. No. 456/2009 also. However, this Court is of the opinion that because of the fault of the Advocate, the petitioners should not suffer. Hence, accepting the cause shown, the order dated.20.11.08 passed in W.P. No. 17699/03 as well as the order dated: 13.1.2009 are recalled. Consequently, Misc.W. No. 456/2009 is allowed.2. Post W.P. No. 17699/03 before the Court as per the roaster for Final hearing....

The Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Officer Vs. Sri Gura ...

Court: Karnataka

Deepak Verma, J.1. Heard Sri. Aravind Kumar, learned Counsel appeared for appellant, on the question of admission.2. Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 18.10.2007 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 360/BANG/2006 for the assessment year 2002-03.3. Assessee had preferred an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order dated 12.01.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Belgaum.4. During the course of hearing before the Tribunal, respondent - assessee took two new grounds, that is to sayi) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the property in question never belonged to the Hindu undivided family. Therefore, capital gains cannot be computed in the status of HUF; andii) There existed no Hindu undivided family. Therefore, no portion of capital gains can be brought to tax in the hands of HUF.5. Nodoubt, it is true that the aforesaid two grounds were taken by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal. Th...

Sri K. Madhava Raja Nayak S/O Late Sri K. Venkappa Sheshagiri Nayak Vs ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(2)KCCR1206; 2009(5)AIRKarR207; AIR2009NOC2884(D.B).

1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the dismissal of O.S.J. Mo. 3/1999 by Judgment and Decree dated 28.8.2006 by the 1 Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) at Mangaiore.2. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the trial court.3. The plaintiff had filed the suit for partition and separate possession with a direction to defendant to render accounts of income of the suit schedule properties and other incidental reliefs as well as for mesne profits.4. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiffs and the defendants are related to each other as per the genealogy given at schedule 'A' to the plaint. One Venkappa Nayak was the common ancestor of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 & 2, he died on 6.1.1962 leaving behind two wives. He was a trader by profession and also owned extensive agricultural lands at Kulur village and on account of his liabilities, the properties at the said village were sold and he thereafter went to Bom...