Karnataka Court March 2009 Judgments

S. Suresh Rao Sathe, S/O. Late V.A. Subba Rao SaThe and ors. Vs. the K ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In the writ petition, petitioners are challenging the order dated 01.01.2009 passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Bangalore City dismissing I.A. No. 2 filed in O.S. No. 7624/2008.2. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred against the order passed on I.A. No. 3 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.3. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in the Court below. They have filed the suit seeking declaration that the communication dated 12.11.2008 issued by the 2nd defendant - President of the Karnataka Kshatriya Maratha Parishath, Bangalore, as null and void. Among other reliefs, they have sought for a declaration that the said 2nd defendant had no power to remove the plaintiffs from the membership of the Central Executive Committee or from the primary membership of the Parishath. It is alleged in the suit that by a resolution dated 08.11.2008, the plaintiffs have sought to be removed both from the primary membership of the Parishath and also from the membership of the C...

NanjappA. Vs. Doddiah and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR2294; 2010(2)KantLJ421; 2010(2)KarLJ421

Venugopala Gowda, J1. The material facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:One Eraiah, son of Goni Eraiah, was the owner of land measuring 1 acre 15 guntas in Sy.No.256/3 of Kenkere Village, Gandasi Hobli, Arasikere Taluk. He executed a deed of settlement on 7.5.1965 (Ex.P 10), settling the said property and other items of properties, in favour of one Smt. Ningamma w/o Chikkanna @ Hitlaiah and one Era Chikkanah, son of Goni Erachikkaiah. Said Era Chikkhiah and his wife Smt. Sanna Thopamma, passed away leaving behind them, their minor daughter Kum. Rangamma. For better appreciation of the case, it is necessary to notice the genealogical tree of the said parties, which is as follows:IMAGESmt. Ningamma, wife of Chikkanna @ Hittaiah, for herself and on behalf of the said Kum. Rangamma (minor), conveyed'an extent of 36 guntas of land in Sy.No.256/3 in favour of one Eraiah, son of Gowdannanavara Era Chikkaiah, (DW.3) along with another item of property to an extent of 21 guntas of lan...

Mspl Limited, Rep by Its Executive Director. Vs. the State of Karnatak ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KCCR5(SN)

(This writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the communication dated 6-12-2004 issued by the first respondent vide annexure-k, in so far as it recommends the grant of mining lease to respondents 4 and 5, and etc.)Writ petition is by a limited company, which has filed an application on 16-4-2003 [copy at Annexure-C to the writ petition] seeking for lease of an extent of 298.5 ha. of land for mining operation for a period of 30 years to exploit iron ore from the said government land and in response to a government notification dated 15-3-2003 [copy at Annexure-B to the writ petition] informing the general public that the areas mentioned in the annexure to the notification are available for regrant under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 [for short, the Rules]; that such an application will be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 [for short, the Act] ...

The State of Karnataka by Its Secretary to the Revenue Department, Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ141:2009(6)AIRKarR1:ILR2009Kar1897

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.1998 in W.P. No. 682/1989 and W.P. Nos. 12574 and 12575/1988, wherein the learned Single Judge has set aside the final notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act) in so far as it relates to the writ petitioners reserving liberty to the respondents to proceed with the acquisition proceedings from the stage of hearing the petitioners on their objections as required under Section 5A of the Act and the order dated 27.6.2005 dismissing Review Petition No. 379/2005 on the ground of delay and laches.2. Respondents herein filed W.P. No. 682/1989 and W.P. Nos. 12574 and 12575/1988 seeking for quashing of the notification dated 27.2.1987 as per Annexure-A to writ petitions and notification dated 27.4.1988 as per Annexure-B to writ petitions. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners are the owners of Sy. No. 80/1 in Subhash Moidan, which was...

Furtado Food Products Rep. by Its Proprietor Robert Furtado S/O E Furt ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR1990; (2009)25VST230(Karn):2009(4)KCCRSN241:AIR2009NOC2986:ILR2009(2)Kar2240

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitions by an assessee assessed under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short 'the Act] who was aggrieved by the order dated 11.2.2008 passed under Section 38[1] of the Act for the period from April 2005 to December 2006 as per the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Audit-7], DVO, Mangalore and who had preferred an appeal against this order before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Appeals], Mangalore who unfortunately has dismissed the appeal in terms of his order dated 18.2.2009 [copy at Annexure-C] as one barred by limitation.2. It is aggrieved by this appellate order dismissing the appeal presented on 17.3.2008 as having been barred by period of limitation as per the provisions of Rule 148[4] of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 [for short 'the Rules] as the appellate authority found that the petitioner had received the order impugned in the appeal as on 15.2.2008, but ...

Shri AleemuddIn and ors. Vs. the Divisional Manager, New India Assuran ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR1422

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Though these appeals are listed for hearing on admission, keeping in view the nature of controversy, learned Counsel on both sides consented for final hearing and disposal of the appeals on merits of the lis. Since common question of facts and law are involved in these two appeals, they are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to with reference to their rank in the Court below.2. A few background facts leading to these appeals are:(i) M.F.A. No. 4387/2008:One Khayamuddin, son of Appellants-1 & 2, husband of appellant-3 and father of appellant 4, was employed as a driver by Mr. Mohammed Naseeruddin, to drive his lorry bearing No. KA-39-4256. The said lorry which had been insured with the respondent, while being driven by said Khayamuddin on 09.03.2007, met with an accident and as a result of fatal injuries sustained, he succumbed. The appellants being the heirs an...

Smt. Rukmini W/O S. Narayanaswamy Vs. Smt. Indirammal W/O C.S. Sheshad ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3224; 2009(6)AIRKarR170.

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. 209 of 1991 on the file of the then Munsiff at Mandya is before this Court in this second appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing her suit filed for redemption of the mortgage and re-delivery of the mortgaged properly to her.2. The appellant was the sole plaintiff and the 1st respondent was the Bole defendant in the trial Court. The plaintiff filed the suit for judgment and decree directing the defendant to redeem the mortgaged properly by receiving the mortgage amount and to deliver the original Mortgage Deed with discharge shara thereon and also to deliver vacant possession of the schedule property to her and for an enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC regarding future mesne profits from, the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession. The subject matter of the suit is an out home situated at Jains Colony, Mondya City bearing Municipal Khatha No. 47...

Matheson Bonsanquet Enterprises Limited Rep. by Its Company Secretary, ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4460; 2009(4)KarLJ565:2009(3)KCCR2188

Arali Nagaraj, J.1. The complainant in CC No. 26107/2000 on the file of the XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore [hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short] has challenged the correctness of the Judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.12.2003 passed in the said case acquitting the accused therein [respondent herein] of the offence tinder Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act' for short].2. Stated in brief the case of the appellant - complainant as alleged in the complaint tiled by him under Section 200 Cr.PC before the Trial Court is as under:(a) The complainant is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The accused, namely K.V. Manjunath received Rs. 70,000/- as loan from the complainant through cheque bearing No. 963095 dated 2.6.1997. Towards repayment of the same, the accused issued to the complainant, a cheque bearing No. 331696 dated 2.9.1997 drawn on Canara Bank, Vasanthanagar Branch, Bangal...

New Taj Mahal Cafe Pvt. Ltd. by Its Executive Director, K. Jagadish Sh ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2009)25VST101(Karn); 2009(3)KCCRSN97; 2009(5)AIRKarR167; AIR2009NOC2987

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioners are dealers assessable to tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short 'the Act']. The Act is a piece of legislation providing for levy of tax on 'sale or purchase of goods', an expression as it occurs in Sub-article 29A of Article 366 of the Constitution of India.2. Under this Act, persons having transaction in the nature of 'sale or purchase of goods' who are dealers and are required to be registered themselves as 'dealers' which enables them to collect tax on sale of goods at the rate as provided for under the provisions of the Act and pass it on to the State. The registered dealers act as agents for the State in gathering and remitting the tax. Such dealers are required to maintain the details of the sales effected by them, amount of tax collected from their customers, file monthly returns in the prescribed form and pay the tax so collected to the state.3. The Act has a scheme where under the goods o...

Mr. E. Ali S/O Mr. Sooppi Vs. the Authorised Officer and Chief Manager ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KarLJ551:2009(5)AIRKarR274(D.B)

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These writ appeals are filed by the petitioner in W. P. No. 11374/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 25.8.2008 wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.2. The appellant herein filed W. P. No. 11374/2008 seeking for quashing of the notice of sale by inviting tender dated 22.7.2008 issued by the respondent as being bad, illegal and arbitrary and for quashing the communication dated 26.5.2008 of respondent forfeiting the petitioner's advance payment of Rs. 45,25,000/- equivalent to 25% of the petitioner's bid price and for a direction to the respondent to take vacant possession of the immovable property and possession of the movable properties in accordance with the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the provisions of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and to deliver vacant possessi...