Karnataka Court March 2009 Judgments

Sri Anil Colaco S/O. J.S. Colaco, Coffee Planter Vs. the Authorized Of ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ249

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 12624/2006 being aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2008, wherein the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition by holding that no ground is made out for interfering with the order dated 8.4.2004 passed by the Fast Track Court - II, Chikmagalur, in Crl.A No. 61/1999 confirming the order dated 7.4.1999 passed by the 1st respondent, confiscating the Canter No. KA 18/1032 belonging the appellant - writ petitioner.2. The appellant herein filed W.P. No. 12624/2006 seeking for quashing the order dated 7.4.1999 passed by the 1st respondent as per Annexure-C to the writ petition and also to quash the order dated 8.4.2004 passed by the Past Track Court-I at Chikamaglur in Crl.A No. 61/1999 produced at Annexure-D to the writ petition.3. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner is the owner of a vehicle bearing Regn. No. 18/1032, a Canter Mitsubishi. It is averred that on 27.8.1993, on Koppa- Jayap...

Smt. Sundaramma Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KarLJ290

1. This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 11952 of 2006 being aggrieved by the order dated 25-9-2008 wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches as well as on merits.2. The appellant herein filed W.P. No. 11952 of 2006 seeking for quashing of Annexures-D and E preliminary notification dated 13-6-1983 and final notification dated 30-7-1984 issued by the first respondent and also Annexure-C, dated 10-7-2006 issued by the third respondent declining to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and for a direction for quashing the preliminary and final notifications issued by the first respondent respectively.3. It is averred in the petition that petitioner purchased land bearing Sy. No. 185/2A measuring 10 1/2 guntas situated at Dakshina Nala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District under registered sale deed dated 16-3-2006. Pursuant to the purchase, petitioner applied for change of m...

T. Ganganna S/O Thippaiah Vs. Zareena Begum W/O Rehman Teacher, Govern ...

Court: Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J.1. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in OS. No. 336/2000. The plaintiff was before the trial Court seeking for a judgment and decree of recovery of money. The trial Court has decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 27,034/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of the suit till its realisation. The defendant was before the lower appellate Court in RA. No. 43/2005. The lower appellate Court though had affirmed the judgment insofar as decreeing the suit for the amount claimed had reduced the interest from the date of the suit till realisation from 18% to 6% p.a. and in all other respects the judgment and decree had been affirmed. The plaintiff is therefore before this Court in this second appeal contending that the lower appellate Court was not justified in reducing the interest from the date of the suit, more particularly, in view of the statutory prevision contained in Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Head the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused...

Sri M.K. Narasimhappa S/O Kondappa Vs. Sri Kondappa S/O Chickpaiah,

Court: Karnataka

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the application filed seeking to lead further evidence by producing two documents namely, cumulative record and genealogical tree.2. Petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court. The trial Court has rejected this request holding that the matter was remanded by the High Court as per the order passed in MSA No. 128/04 for fresh decision and the plaintiff did not state anything in his affidavit as to how the two documents sought to be produced were necessary for adjudication of the case. The court below has further found that for effective adjudication of the dispute, documents sought to be produced were not necessary. Hence, the request for production of the documents and for leading further evidence is rejected.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In MSA No. 128/04, disposed of on 19th June 2006, this Court reserved liberty to the plaintiff to apply for amendment of the plaint for addition of a new p...

Shrimathi W/O Ramesh Nayak Vs. Renuka W/O Late Bharat Bhushan

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010CriLJ372; 2010(1)KarLJ197; 2009(6)AIRKarR394

Arali Nagaraj, J.1. The complainant in CC. No. 7926/2002 on the file of the Learned J.M.F.C., IV Court, Dakshina Kannada. (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' in short) has challenged in this appeal the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.4.2004 passed in the said case acquitting the accused therein (who is the respondent herein) of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I. Act' in short).2. I have heard the arguments of Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, the learned Counsel for the appellant-complainant and also Sri Shahul Hameed, the learned Advocate for Sri. B.L. Acharya, the learned Counsel for the respondent - accused and perused the impugned judgment and also the entire material found in the original records obtained from the Trail Court.3. Stated in brief the case of the complainant as averred in his complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is as under, (Parties will be referred to as per their rank before the Tr...

Om Investment Corporation by Its Partner - Sri Kanhaiyalal Giria Vs. A ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KCCR2956; 2009(5)KLJ125; 2009(4)AIRKarR121; ILR2009KAR3173; 2009(5)KarLJ125; (2009)IVLLJ317Kant

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 26.9.2005 - annexure B passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and also the order dated 30.3.2001 - annexure A passed by the respondent - EPF Commissioner and to direct the respondent to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order dated 30.3.2001.2. Petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business in household electrical goods in Bangalore. The respondent initiated proceedings under Section 7A of the EPF Act against the petitioner to determine its liability and assess the contribution payable under the Act. By order dated 30.3.2001, respondent held that petitioner is covered under the EPF Act and assessed the contribution payable by the petitioner at Rs. 9,48,130/-. Petitioner challenged the said order before the EPF Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal by order dated 26.9.2005, dismissed the appeal filed. Hence, this petition.3. Heard the Counsel...

Smt. B. Indramma W/O. Sri. H. Shivamurthy Vs. Sri. Eshwar S/O. Rangapp ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR2331; 2009(5)KarLJ491

Arali Nagaraj, J.1. The complainant, in C.C. No. 29320/06 on the file of the learned XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short) has challenged in this appeal the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.4.2008 passed in the said case acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.I. Act' for short).2. Though this matter is listed today for admission it is taken for final disposal by consent of the learned Counsel for both file sides and their arguments on merits are heard. I have perused the impugned judgment: and the entire material obtained from the Trial Court.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties the only point that arises for my determination in this appeal is-Whether the Trial Court was Justified in acquitting the accused in the said case (respondent herein) of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act by re...

Marimallappa Charities Vs. Addl. Cit and anr.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It appears that the petitioner was not happy with the assessment order passed by the assessing authority in respect of the assessment year 2006-07 raising a demand for payment of income-tax amounting to Rs. 38,38,994.2. Petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act and the appeal is pending before the appellate authority. Petitioner it appears, had also filed an application under Section 251 of the Act, seeking for stay of enforcement of the demand pursuant to the assessment order.3. Appellate authority on noticing that as the petitioner had filed an application for stay before the assessing authority and being of the view that the application for stay before him was premature, disposed of the application observing that the assessing authority is being directed to dispose of the said application filed by the petitioner at the earliest and also observed that it is ope...

Sri M. Sanjeev Gowda S/O Sri Annaiah Gowda Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR2254

ORDERAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. The appointment of the respondent Nos. 4 to 12 as the Members of the Managing Committee of the third respondent - Temple is called Into question in this petition.2. The background facts of the case in a nutshell are that the third respondent is a famous Temple attracting the devotees from all over the country. The second respondent called for the applications from the aspiring devotees for making appointments to the Managing Committee of the said Temple. In this regard, the notification (Annexure-B) was issued on 28.06.2005. As many as 94 applications were received in response to this notification. On account of the pendency of the matter involving the challenge to the very same notification, the appointments could not be made immediately. On the disposal of the Writ Petition No. 15827/2005 and Writ Appeal No. 3440/2005, the respondent No. 2 issued one more notification dated 10.07.2006 (Annexure-C) calling for the applications. It was made clear in the n...

The Chief Postmaster General and ors. Vs. Bangalore Water Supply and S ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR1743; 2009(5)KarLJ477

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 441 of 2007 have sought for calling the records from the respondents and to quash the order Annexure A, dated 25th September 2006, Annexure B, dated 27th November 2005 Annexure C, dated 27th March 2006, Annexure D, dated 30th June 2005, Annexure E dated 25th March 2005 issued by the first respondent, Annexure F dated 22nd November 2005 issued by the third respondent and Annexure 1 Notification dated 1st April 1997 issued by the first respondent.Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8977 of 2006 has sought for calling the records which ultimately resulted in passing order Annexures A, B and D from the respondents and to quash the order Annexure - A, dated 21st March 2006 in No. BWSSB/AEEC-W/RM/595/2005-06, Annexure-B, dated 15th December 2006 passed by the second respondent and Annexure-D Notification dated 1st April 1997 in No. BWSSB/CAO[R]/AO[R]/572/97-98 issued by the first respondent.2. The petitioners herein are Central Government es...