Karnataka Court April 2009 Judgments

Sri M. Rajappa S/O Muniveerappa Vs. State of Karnataka by Director Gen ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. Writ petitioner one M Rajappa-a resident of Anniyalam Village, Denkhanikote Hobli & Taluk, Krishnagiri District of the State of Tamil Nadu has presented this writ petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus and for securing the release of his sister by name Kumari Manjula who it was apprehended is under the illegal and forceful custody of the respondents 3 & 4 -residents of Sammanahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.2. The petition averments are that said Kumari Manjula was residing with her parents at Anniyalam Village and was working in a garment factory called 'Fashion Craft' at Marasur Village near Anekal; that the sister of the petitioner would leave her village by 7 am in the morning and would normally return by 7.30 pm in the evening, but on 13.3.2009 though she left her village as usual, did not return in the evening with her other sister Ambuja who is also working in the same factory and even thereafter as said Manjula did not return, the...

Mysore Minerals Ltd. Rep. by Managing Director Vs. Veerabhadra Vahana ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR2339; 2009(4)KarLJ711

1. These two writ appeals arise out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 12727/2004 dated 23/6/2007 and 3.8.2007 wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the communication dated 14.10.2003 and has directed the respondent - M/s. Mysore Minerals Ltd., to supply the balance quantity of Iron Ore Fines at the rate which was prevailing as on the date of filing the writ petition and has further directed the writ petitioner to pay interest on Rs. 40 lakhs at the rate of 6% p.a. from 14.10.2003 till the date of payment and has ordered that revised rate shall not carry any interest.2.1. The material facts of the case leading upto these appeals with reference to the rank of the parties in the writ petition are as follows:2.2. W.P. No. 12727/2004 was filed seeking for quashing of the communication dated 14.10.2003 issued by the respondent in the writ petition and for directing the respondent to honour its commitment under the letter of inten...

Manjunatha Overseas Granite Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Director ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR2553; 2009(5)KarLJ412

1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant herein who has filed this appeal against the order dated 15.04.2005 made in W.P. No. 15212/2004 refusing to grant issue of mandamus directing the respondents to supply 20000 PDMT iron ore fines of +65% from Subbarayanahalli Iron Ore Mines at Rs. 175/- per PDMT pursuant to the letter of allotment dated 17.11.2003.2. The appellant-writ: petitioner, in the writ petition sought to quash the order dated 04.02.2004 passed by respondent herein. The said order reads as hereunder:Sub: Re-allotment of delivery note with respect to Iron ore fines as against the delivery order dated 05.12.2003.Ref. (1) Your letter dated 14.11.2003(2) Our letter of intent dated 17.11.2003.(3) Delivery order dated 05.12.2003.With reference to the above subject, our company had released 20,000 Mts. Of +65% iron ore fines from our Subbarayanahalli Iron Ore Mine. After receiving Rs. 31.00 lakhs of advance amount as per the letter of intent at Rs. 175/- per PDMT inclu...

J.T. Rajeev S/O J.R. Thimma Nayak, Vs. State of Karnataka by the Stati ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4466

ORDERH. Billappa, J.1. This petition is filed by petitioners 1 to 3 under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order dated 15.6.2001 passed in C.C.271/01 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) & JMFC, Hiriyur, registering the above casa against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 498-A and 506, I.P.C. read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and to quash the entire proceedings therein.2. The case of the petitioners In a nutshell is that the petitioner No. 1 who is none other than the husband of respondent No. 2 herein, filed a petition before the Family Court at Bangalore, in M.C. 1278/00 under Section 13(1)(la) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of his marriage with respondent No. 2 by way of divorce. On being notified of filing of such case, the 2nd respondent resisted the petition and filed counter statement. When the matter readied trial, the parties examined themselves as PW1 and RW1 respectively. The 1st p...

Sudha S. Patil W/O Somashekar D. Patil Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. by ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ266:2009(5)AIRKarR292(D.B):2009(4)KCCRSN263

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common order dated 2/8/2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 7555/2005, 7943/2005 and 8092/2005, dismissing the said petitions filed by the appellants herein.2. The appellant in W.A. No. 1749/2007 was the petitioner in W.P. No. 7943/05. The appellants in W.A. 1750/05 were the petitioners in W.P. No. 8092/05. The appellant in W.A. No. 1751/07 was the petitioner in W.P. No. 7555/05. As the common order passed in the above said writ petitions is challenged in these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. The appellants filed the writ petitions seeking quashing of the auction notification dated 18/2/2005 issued by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short BDA) proposing to auction the sites mentioned in the said notification.4. Case of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 7555 and 7943 of 2005 in brief is as under:Land bearing survey No. 28 of Agrhara Dasarahalli, Yashw...

Mysore Minerals Ltd. (a Govt. of Karnataka Undertaking) Rep. by Managi ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR2142; 2009(5)KarLJ443

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 18.1.2008 wherein the learned Single Judge of this court has granted clarification sought for in the application I.A. 1/2007 in respect of the order dated 12.8.2008 passed pursuant to settlement arrived at between the parties.2. Writ petition No. 17461/2005 was filed by the respondents herein seeking for a mandamus directing the respondents to supply the iron ore fine as per the letters of intent dated 23.12.2003, 26.12.2003 and 31.12.2003. It is averred in the petition that petitioners are engaged in the business of quarrying granites and exports. The respondent is holding mining lease issued by the State Government in respect of the mines situated in Subbarayanahalli and Ubbalagundi Sandoor Taluk, Bellary District. The respondent entered into a Rising agreement with M/s. Kalyani Ferrous Industries for extraction of iron ore. M/s. Kirloskar Ferrous Ltd., has conducted the quarrying operation and have extracted...

Subha and Prabha Builders Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director One, ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KCCRSN212; (2009)225CTR(Kar)90; [2009]318ITR29(KAR); [2009]318ITR29(Karn)

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a private limited company which claims to be carrying on business in real estate as a builder and developer.2. It appears the petitioner's activities had attracted the attention of the Income Tax Authorities and in a survey conducted, the officers of the income tax department had visited the business premises of the petitioner as on 20.9.2005, examined the general activities of the petitioner, various books of accounts and other documents maintained at the office premises of the petitioner and as a follow up action issued a notice on the same day summoning the petitioner to appear before the officer with ledgers, cash book, vouchers and bank passbooks and its details.3. It appears the respondents also made an inventory of the books of accounts, documents and such other papers available there and while took away the papers and documents contained in as many as thirty files, but nevertheless issued summons on 20.9.2005 [copy at Annexure-A]...

K. Ramakrishna, Engineer and Contractors, R/by His Pa Holder Aa Raghav ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2010Kant7:2009(5)AIRKarR424

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. Both these petitions are filed under Section 151, C.P.C. challenging the orders dated 4.1.2003 and 7.3.2003 passed on I.A.4 and I.A.2 respectively in case No. A.C.1/02 on the file of the District Judge, Mandya, praying to set aside the said orders and to dismiss I.As.4 and 2 filed by respondent No. 1 herein.2. The case of the petitioners is that he was a successful bidder for carrying out the work of laying water supply distribution system, construction of overhead tanks, laying of machines, supply of submersible and centrifugal pipes on a turn-key basis. To that effect an agreement/contract was entered into between the petitioner and the State of Karnataka on 7.4.1995 which provided for an arbitration clause in case of any dispute.3. It is his further case that he carried out the work sincerely and diligently and completed the entire work to the satisfaction of the State Government by May 1999, and that at the instance of the State Government he had carried out a...

Lakshminarayana Mining Company Registered Partnership Firm Represented ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3259

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. Whether the report of the Lokayukta could be the basis for registering the First Information Report dated 4.2.2009 against the petitioner and to pass an order dated 5.2.2009 seizing the iron ore alleged to have illegally mined in the forest area as well as the tools, vehicles and machinery used for such illegal mining; and whether such FIR and the order of seizure can be quashed by exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are the questions that arise for our consideration in the present writ petition.2. The petitioner was originally granted a mining lease on 21.5.1963 bearing M.L. No. 123 for extracting iron ore for a period of twenty years over an extent of 175.63 hectares in N.E.B. Range, Sandur taluk, Bellary District, which was subsequently renewed further for a period of twenty years on 29.4.2005 with effect from 21.5.2003; at the time of this renewal, the area granted for mining purpose was reduced to 105.22 he...

K.N. Prabhakar S/O S. Ningappa Vs. State of Karnataka Represented by I ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ268:2009(6)AIRKarR432(D.B)

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The petitioner in these petitions is a registered civil contractor carrying on civil works of the Government Department and Local Bodies. It is contended that for the purpose of execution of civil works, the petitioner is required to purchase building materials from the private sources. It is further contended that the petitioner does not own any quarries and that he is not liable to pay any royalty to the respondents. However, the respondents are deducting royalty from the bills of the petitioner without any authority of law. Hence, the petition praying not to deduct the royalty from the bills of the petitioner in respect of the materials procured by him from private sources for execution of the civil contract works.2. In similar matters, this Court in G.V. Kumar and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. in Writ Petitions No. 31384-31266 of 1994 disposed of on 31st October, 1994 has laid down the principles relating to the payment of royalty by the contractors. Th...