Karnataka Court March 2009 Judgments

Prashant P.D. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ280; 2009(4)AIRKarR214; AIR2009NOC2865

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitions either by private co-operative societies registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act') or members of such societies.2. Writ petitioners are all aggrieved that election process for electing office-bearers who constitute the committee of management in the societies while in progress and which was required to be completed in terms of the statutory provision fifteen days before the end of the co-operative year for each year which coincides with the financial year and ending by the 31st of March each year has been interfered by the State Government by issue of a notification dated 4-3-2009, copy of which is produced as one of the annexures in all these writ petitions; that the interference is unnecessary, was not warranted; that though the notification recites that the Government has such power to postpone the election process which had already commenced and was in progress till the com...

The Commissioner of Income Tax and the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, ...

Court: Karnataka

A.S. Pachhapure, J.1. This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the concurrent findings of the Older passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and further confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in ITA No. 591/Bang/1995, dt. 8.7.2003 for the assessment year 1993-94.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under;The respondent Assessee is a private trust and it filed a return of income on 30.6.1993 declaring an income of Rs. 88,62,897/- as an income from capital gains. The return was originally processed under Section 143(1-A) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Assessee entered into an agreement of sale on 6.4.1989 with Mrs. Sayeeda Fathima Begum for purchase of the agriculture lands in Sy. Nos. 35 to 39 (old Sy. No. 100) of B. Narayanapura in Bangalore south taluk and an advance of Rs. 10,000/- was paid on that day and a further advance of Rs. 90,000/- was paid on 30.8.1989. The Assessee, after enterin...

Mahamed Rafiq, Umarabbi Vs. State by Kunigal Police

Court: Karnataka

K. Ramanna, J.1 Learned Counsel for petitioner has filed a memo along with the wedding card of the petitioner's sister, whose marriage has been fixed on 23/3/2009. He submits that the petitioner has deposited the fine amount of Rs, 2,500/- before the trial Court2. Learned H.C.G.P. is directed to take notice on behalf of the respondent/State.3. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned H.C.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondent/State regarding suspension of sentence.4. Considering the submission made by the petitioner and also the fact that the marriage of the sister of the petitioner has been fixed on 23/3/2009, it is just and proper to suspend the sentence passed by the Court below for a limited period of six weeks, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25.000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court and shall appear before the trial Court as and when called for.5. Accordingly, this Misc, Crl. application is allowe...

Viji @ Vijay Kumar S/O Late Thangavelu Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. This petition is filed under Section 439 Cr. P.C seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Addl. Public Prosecutor. Perused the order of learned District Judge, who declined to exercise the discretionary power and rejected the bail petition of the petitioner.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that in respect of 12 co-accused persons, this Court has granted bail. He rightly pointed-out that on the basis of the statement of CW-16 Suresh the learned Sessons Judge declined to grant bail to the petitioner. From that statement I am prima facie satisfied that petitioner is entitled to bail, especially when other accused persons are on bail.4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to the conditions that he shall execute, a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-with one surety for the like sum. that he shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses and shall co-operate wi...

Raju Laxman Pachapure Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KarLJ470:2009(3)KCCRSN101:2009(4)AIRKarR184:2009Cri.LJ3081

ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The issue that arises for our consideration in W.P. No. 15119 of 2006, a public interest litigation filed in the year 2006, is whether respondent be directed to take appropriate action against 6th respondent-industry based on the representation of petitioner dated 11-9-2006 for manufacturing gutka product which undisputedly falls within the definition of 'Food' defined under Section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'PFA Act') on the ground the samples of gutka which is admittedly manufactured by 6th respondent contains use of anticaking agent viz., magnesium carbonate which is barred under Rule 62 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'PFA Rules'), is a major public health hazard.2. When the matter came originally for admission on 4-6-2008, this Court passed the following interim order:We find it necessary in the public interest to issue an interim order directing the p...

Papayya Vs. Dundappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ75

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, is questioning the order passed by the learned Trial Judge declining to admit the suit document on the ground that it is a promissory note and not a debt of acknowledgment.2. The matter arises in the following manner.:The petitioner, it appears that, had opted to retire from the firm on 25-3-1995, Hence, a settlement was arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant-respondent and a document was drawn up on the same day i.e., on 25-3-1995. A copy of which is produced at Annexure-B indicates that the respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs. l,50,000/-. Since, the respondent did not come forward to pay the said amount, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S. No. 141 of 1997 for recovery of the said amount on the basis of Annexure-B, During the course of trial, when the document was put in evidence, it appears, an objection was taken by the respondent to the effect that the suit document. would amount to promissory note ...

Sri Murugesh S/O Narasimhan Vs. State of Karnataka by Yalahanka New To ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. Heard.2. The Petitioner is arrested for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 302 of IPC. According to the learned SPP, investigation is already over and the charge-sheet also has been filed and the case is committed for trial.3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 15.000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions.a. The petitioner shall report before the concerned jurisdictional Court where the case is pending, on every Monday of the first week of every month at 10 am and thereafter, shall also make himself available before the respondent as and when required.b. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdictional police limits without prior permission.c. Petitioner shall not tamper with the witnesses or in any manner interfere with or put obstacle to th...

Jindal thermal Power Company Limited (Earlier Known as Jindal Trancteb ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2009)225CTR(Kar)220; [2009]182TAXMAN252(Kar)

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. All the appeals pertain to same subject matter involving similar questions of law and fact. Hence, all the appeals are heard together for common disposal. The material facts are as under:M/s. Jindal Thermal Power Company Limited (Jindal) (appellant in all the appeals) entered into contract with Raytheon-Ebasco Overseas Ltd., (REOL) and other three companies viz., 1) BHEL, 2) Energy Overseas International Inc. (EOI) and 3) Badger Energy Inc. (BEI) for .commissioning of power plant at Thorangal, Beilary District. The companies BEI & EOI are the subsidiary companies of REOL. BHEL is a Government of India undertaking. Jindal entered into four separate contracts with REOL, BHEL, BEI and EOI. BHEL under the contract obliged to supply of Boilers, steam turbine Generators, main pow7er transformers and process piping. The BEI Under the contract is obliged to local services, construction of all BHEL supply, start-up and commissioning. The obligation of EOI under the contrac...

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Winston Tan and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KarLJ613(1):2009(3)KCCR19002009(4)AIRKarR408:2009CriLJNOC1101(D.B)

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12-9-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 764 of 2006 (Winston Tan and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 2008 (3) Kar.L.J. 518), a writ petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, seeking to quash the order dated 23-6-2005, whereunder the property alleged to have been acquired by the respondents 3 and 4, got forfeited in view of Section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act'), and the learned Single Judge quashed the same and remanded the matter to the second respondent in the writ petition, with a further direction to the give notice to the respondents 1 and 2-writ petitioners and to hold an enquiry before proceeding further in the matter, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.2. Respondents 3 and 4 are the original owners of the property in question, from whom the respondents 1 and 2-writ petitioners have purchased it, after the ...

Adarsha Electricals Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2010)27VST272(Karn)

Manjula Chellur, J.1. This appeal is directed challenging Annexure A orders of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax dated July 22, 2008 in No. ZAC-1/BCD 1 & 3/SMR-112/06-07 passed under Section 22A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a contractor, a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and also Central Sales Tax Act carrying on business on development of land and construction of buildings, which falls under entry 11 of the Sixth Schedule. It is contended by the appellant that originally on the returns submitted by him for the year 1999-2000 the assessing authority has passed assessment order on March 7, 2003, levying Rs. 1,40,000 by TDS which was already paid by TDS. It is also not in dispute that when the assessee filed revised return voluntarily, the assessing authority reopened the assessment under Section 12A and passed orders on October 27, 2003, as per annexure C. Later o...