Karnataka Court April 2009 Judgments

B.P.L. Ltd., Bpl Works Rep. by Its Chairman and Managing Director Mr. ...

Court: Karnataka

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. Crl. P. No. 1467/2006 is filed by M/s. B.P.L. Ltd., (Company for short) and Crl. P. No. 1465/2006 is filed by the persons who are said to have been incharge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business seeking the relief of quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 25149/2005, Similarly, Crl. P. No. 1464/2006 is filed by the Company and Crl. P. No. 1463/2006 is filed by the persons who are said to have been incharge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business seeking the relief of quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 2688/2003. M/s. Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited is the common respondent in all the four petitions.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioning Company is a public limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent gave short-term loans to the Company. The cheques dt 10.07.2002, 10.07.2002, 27.06.2002, 10.07.2002, 10.07.2002 and 27.06.2002 for Rs. 41,...

P. Venganna Shetty and Brothers Rep. by Its Authorised Signatory Sri K ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)AIRKarR247(D.B)

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1.1. The petitioner is an 'User Agency' as defined under Rule 2(h) of the Karnataka Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003. Admittedly, the impugned quarry is in the forest area, which requires the prior permission under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short 'FC Act').1.2. Pursuant to the approval of the Central Government dated 15/16th March, 2005 under Section 2 of the FC Act, the State Government entered into an agreement dated 4.8.2005 with the petitioner for mining iron ore in Karadikolla Village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District over an extent of fifty hectares under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'MMDR Act') in the forest area and thereafter the petitioner has obtained consent letter from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board on 9.1.2006.1.3. Clauses 7 and 16 of the Lease Agreement dated 4.8.2005 entered into between the petitioner and the fourth respondent-Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary D...

Smt. Kalavathi D/O. Late V.C. Venkatachallam and Sri V.P. Suresh Kumar ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. Petitioners 1 & 2 are defendants No. 4 & 3(a) in O.S. No. 16707/2002. They have Sled this writ petition seeking a direction to the trial Court to appoint a translator and also for a further direction to permit the petitioner to mark certain documents.2. On an earlier occasion, petitioners had approached this Court in W.P. No. 9720/2009 seeking a direction to the Deputy Registrar, City Civil Court, Mayo Hall Unit, to issue certified copies of certain documents which they intended to mark in their evidence. The said Writ petition has been disposed off on 09.04.2009. In paragraph 7 of the said order passed by this Court, it is observed that petitioners intended to rely upon the documents in HRC Petition No. 200/1975 and Execution Case No. 353/1977 which they were not diligent to secure all these years since 2002. It has been further ordered in the said writ petition that only to ensure that the proceedings wei e not unnecessarily protracted, this Court had issued in ...

Sri Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports Rep. by Shantesh Gureddi Partner Vs. S ...

Court: Karnataka

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. Whether the report of the Lokayukta could be the basis for registering the First Information Report dated 12.2.2009 against the petitioner and to pass an order dated 12.2.2009 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 is a registered partnership firm and was a lessee under the mining lease bearing M.L. No. 2141 dated 24.1.1992 for a period of twenty years over an extent of 82.55 acres in Yeswanthnagar, Sandur taluk, Bellary district, for mining iron ore.3. The undisputed factual matrix of the case are that the impugned iron ore mining is located within the forest area and the same is governed by the provisions of t...

The Institution of Engineers (India) Represented by Its Secretary and ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioners axe challenging the order dated 02.02.2009 passed by XXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City on I.A. No. II filed under Order VII Rule 10 in O.S. No. 7420/2008 seeking dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction.2. Defendants 2 to 4 in the suit filed the said application seeking dismissal of the suit contending interalia that the Court at Bangalore had no jurisdiction to try the case. The court below has dismissed the application by the impugned order.3. Petitioner No. 1 is the Institution of Engineers located at No. 8, Gokhale Road, Kolkata and is represented by its Secretary and Director General whereas petitioners 2 & 3 ate authorities concerned with the Karnataka State Centre. The 4th Petitioner is the Board of Scrutineers appointed for election of one Corporate Member to the Council for the Karnataka State Centre and also for election of Division-wise Corporate Members to the Committee of Karnataka State Ce...

D.N. Nanjunda Reddy S/O. Late B.N. Narayana Reddy Vs. State of Karnata ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioners are the owners of various properties situated adjoining the State Highway passing through Town Municipality, Bagepalli. They have put up commercial buildings over the said properties adjoining the road. The respondent-State issued Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' on 16.10.2006 proposing to widen the State Highway which passes through Bagepalli Town. The petitioners have filed their statement of objections to the preliminary notification. Hearing on objections under Section 5A of the Act was conducted on 27.12.2006 and 28.12.2006. Thereafter, the Final Notification, dated 22.2.2007 is issued for acquiring certain properties belonging to the petitioners and others for widening of the State Highway at Bagepalli. Questioning the acquisition notifications, these writ petitions are filed.2. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil and Sri Madhusudan R. Naik, learned Senior Advocat...

K. Ramesh S/O A.H. Krishnappa Vs. the Director of Mines and Geology,

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 10804/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.2009 wherein the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition.2. The appellant herein tiled W.P. No. 10804/2008 seeking for declaration that the sketch appended to the notification dated 28.4.2008 in so far as it permits quarrying lease for a period of 20 years over an area of 7 acres of land in Sy. No. 124 of Haliyar village, Kollegal taluk, Chamarajanagar district, where there is no black dyke for quarrying, is illegal and quash the same.3. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner was granted quarrying lease for 10 acres 24 guntas of land in government Sy. No. 124 of Haliyar village, Kollegal taluk, Chamarajanagar district under two registered lease deeds dated 7.7.1978 for quarrying ornamental black dyke. The period of lease was for five years. The area was surveyed and the petitioner was put in possession of the said land. The petitioner spent huge sums of money f...

Tata Teleservices Limited Represented by Its Manager Legal Mr. Safeer ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioner is a Limited Company, who is a service provider as Tele Services to its subscribers and for the purpose of its business as Telecom Dealer, have erected telecom towers at-different Base Trans Receiver Stations all over Karnataka and 67 such towers in Bangalore city itself.2. Such Base Service Stations are all provided with power connections by the first respondent, Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited and the permitted load is indicated in the agreement executed between the petitioner and the first respondent company.3. It appears, the officials of the first respondent company on an inspection carried out on several dates during the month of January 2009, found that all such Base Service Stations with telecom towers erected as part of service stations have been making use of excess load over and above the authorised load and therefore have indicated that unless the petitioner takes corrective measures to get unauthorised part of th...

The Shanthinagar House Building Co-op. Society Ltd. Represented by Its ...

Court: Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.1. In this Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 5 r/w. Section 114 of C.P.C., the petitioner has sought review of the judgment dated 23.12.2008 passed by this Court in WA No. 1199 of 2007 c/w. W.P. No. 10726 of 2007 interalia on the ground that in the said judgment, the rights of the petitioner-Society have been adjudicated upon without impleading it as a party to the said proceedings and without giving an opportunity of being heard to it Therefore, it is urged that the said judgment is required to be reviewed and the matter may be heard on merits after affording an opportunity to the petitioner-Society and dispose off the same. It is also contended in tins petition that this Court having recorded a finding that the question as to the identity or genuineness of a Co-operative Society cannot be the subject of an enquiry either under Section 64 or under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and tha...

Smt Chowdamma W/O Late Basappa and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalor ...

Court: Karnataka

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC., seeking for review of the order dated 16.10.2008 passed is Writ Appeal No. 1557/2004.2. It is averred in the review petition that the order passed by this court on 16.10.2008 is liable to be reviewed as the BDA., has failed to implement the scheme by hand-in-glove with the fourth respondent-Society and the appeal had come up for orders in view of the applications pending in the appeal and since the Bench has expressed to hear the matter on merits. When the review petition was called out, the Counsel appearing for the petitioners was absent and no representation was made on his behalf.3. We have perused the grounds urged in the review petition and it is clear from the order passed by this court on 16.10.2008 that the said order has been passed on merits by holding that writ petitions are filed during 2003 challenging the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the year 1971 and after expiry of the requisite peri...