Karnataka Court June 2009 Judgments

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. by Its Manager Vs. Smt. Mahadevamma W/O L ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR4135; 2010(1)KarLJ304

B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.It is a case of death of one Nagaraju in a motor road accident occurred on 19-5-2006. His wife and son are the claimants before the Tribunal and they are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.2. Brief facts of the case are, that on, 19-5-2006 at about 6.30 a.m. when the deceased Nagaraju was proceeding in a maxi cab bearing registration No. KA-03-A-0847, the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver on Anekal -Chandapura Road and it hit against a Banyan tree near Havadadenahalli village. The deceased Nagaraju sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately shifted to Anekal Government Hospital, wherein first aid treatment was given, and thereafter he was referred to Bangalore Hospital and he succumbed to injuries on the way to the hospital.3. Both the owner of the vehicle arid the Insurance Company have filed their separate statement of objections. The Insurance Company in its statement of objections though has denied the case of ...

Gowrishankar @ Puttaraju, Vs. H.B Balappa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(3)KCCR2119

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. to review the order passed by this Court in R.S.A. No. 201/2000 and R.S.A. No 202/2000 dated 24.02.2005.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in OS. No 757/1976 the plaintiffs sought for declaration that plaintiffs are the owners of the schedule property and for a direction to the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the schedule property and other reliefs and the reliefs that is sought for in OS. No. 88/1984 is also for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the schedule property and for direction to defendants to deliver vacant possession of schedule property and directing the defendant to pay costs and therefore the prayer for declaration sought for in respect- of the same schedule property by the same plaintiff is lawful and this Court ought to have held the prayer on O.S. No. SS/84 is also hit by principles of Resjudicata4. Learned coun...

The Deputy Commissioner, Vs. Kenchaiah S/O Kallaiah and ors.

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal is filed by the State-respondents in W.P. No. 4809/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 26.3.2008 wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the respondents-appellants herein for fresh consideration of the application of the petitioners in accordance with law.2. The respondents herein filed W.P. No. 4809/2008 being aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the respondents in the writ petition wherein the application filed for permission to fell trees as sought for by the writ petitioners was rejected by the impugned order dated 21.02.2008 and communication dated 28.1.2008. It is contended in the writ petition that petitioners are entitled to cut the trees by seeking permission from the respondents in the writ petition and permission ought to have been granted and the application for permission to fell the trees has been wrongly rejected by holding that no permission can be granted to fell the trees situate in the private lan...

The Deputy Commissioner, Vs. K.K. Basappa S/O Hoovegowda,

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal is filed by the State-respondents in W.P. No. 4805/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 26.3.2008 wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the respondents-appellants herein for fresh consideration of the application of the petitioners in accordance with law.2. The respondents herein filed W.P. No. 4805/2008 being aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the respondents in the writ petition wherein the application filed for permission to fell trees as sought for by the writ petitioners was rejected by the impugned order dated 10.3.2007 and endorsement 20.3.2008. It is contended in the writ petition that petitioners are entitled to cut the trees by seeking permission from the respondents in the writ petition and permission ought to have been granted and the application for permission to fell the trees has been wrongly rejected by holding that no permission can be granted to fell the trees situate in the private lands as the...

The Deputy Commissioner, Vs. K.G. Venkatesh S/O Govindegowda,

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal is filed by the State-respondents in W.P. No. 6212/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 16.4.2008 wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the respondents-appellants herein for fresh consideration of the application of the petitioners in accordance with law.2. The respondents herein filed W.P. No. 6212/2008 being aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the respondents in the writ petition wherein the application filed for permission to fell trees as sought for by the writ petitioners was rejected by the impugned order dated 15.6.2007 and endorsement dated 30.1.2008. It is contended in the writ petition that petitioners are entitled to cut the trees by seeking permission from the respondents in the writ petition and permission ought to have been granted and the application for permission to fell the trees has been wrongly rejected by holding that no permission can be granted to fell the trees situate in the private lands ...

The Commissioner of Income-tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-t ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]319ITR425(KAR); [2009]319ITR425(Karn)

V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This appeal is by the appellant questioning the correctness of the order dated 31-7-2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in ITA No. 769/Bang/2002 for the assessment year 1997-98, by framing the following substantial questions of law:12. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act?13. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act cannot he denied on the basis of the provisions of Section 13(2B) of the Act?14. Whether the Tribunal was correct in recording a finding that the misuse of funds was very insignificant and there was exaggeration by the Assessing Officer in holding that the payments had been made to family members as there were only minor irregularities in accounts and that the remuneration and electricity bill being paid was justified by ignoring the cogent evidence examined by the Assessing Officer which clearly ...

Wisdom Security Services Represented by Its Proprietor, N.C. Prakash V ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR2858; 2009(6)AIRKarR96

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the Tender notification dated 5.2.09 published in Kannada Prabha, a Kannada daily news paper [Shimoga Edition] dated 7.2.09, in Annexure-G, has presented this writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought to direct the respondent to execute the contract as per the letter dated 30.12.08, vide Annexure-D.2. The grievance of the petitioner as made out by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, petitioner is a reputed Security Agency and is one of the leading Security Agents and Labour Contractors in the State of Karnataka and is registered under Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1961. The petitioner, in pursuance to the notification issued by the respondent dated 11.12.2008, has submitted his tender on 26.12.2008. The same has been accepted and a communication has been sent to the petitioner on 30.12.2008 calling upon to execute an agreement. It is the further case of the petitione...

Paragon Steels (P) Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director, Mr. M. Paramasi ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3446; 2009(6)KarLJ566:2009(5)AIRKarR431

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.2008 in O.S. No. 2035/2007 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge Bangalore allowing LA. No. II filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.2. Appellant is defendant and respondent is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. In this judgment, for convenience, the parties are referred to their status before the Trial Court.3. Plaintiff is a registered partnership firm carrying on its business in the manufacture and sale of footwear and allied products under the registered trademark 'PARAGON'. The plaintiff is having exclusive right over the registered trademark PARAGON' and therefore they are entitled to protect the mark from misuse by any other person. The plaintiff by spending huge sum of money' popularised the registered trademark 'PARAGON' and the same has acquired reputation, goodwill and a distinctive character representing the plaintiff's products. Though the plaintiff is using the registered trademark...

T.D. Vasantha Kumar Vs. the Assistant Executive Engineer and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ489; (2010)ILLJ17Kant

N. Kumar, J.1. The appellant has challenged in this appeal the order passed by the learned Single Judge who has modified the order of the Labour Court which had granted reinstatement with 50% back wages to that of a monetary benefits.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in order of the learned Single Judge.3. The facts leading to this dispute are as under:The petitioner was working as a daily wager with the respondent. He was a Diploma holder in Engineering. His services came to be terminated as on 1-10-1987. He raised an industrial dispute contending that he had worked for more than 240 days, has termination is contrary to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court after enquiry found that the workman had worked for 240 days and therefore his termination was contrary to Section 25F of the Act. It also took note of the fact that there was a delay of 9 years in raising the dispute. Therefore, it awarded reinstatem...

H.G. Sudhakara S/O Giddegowda Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented b ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ180

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 17855/2007 being aggrieved by the order dated 12.2.2009 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no merit in the writ petition.2. The appellant herein filed W.P.No. 17855/2007 being aggrieved by the order passed by the third respondent as per Annexure-G to the writ petition dated 23.7.2007 wherein the application of the petitioner for renewal of mining lease No. 439 granted for extraction of building stone in the land measuring 1 acre in Sy. No. 73 of Bidaragudu village, Thirthahalli taluk, Shimoga District has been rejected. It is averred in the writ petition that petitioner was an unemployed graduate who in the year 1997 had applied for quarrying lease in respect of building stone in Sy. No. 73 of Bidaragudu village, Thirthahalli Taluk, to an extent of one acre and Government of Karnataka granted quarrying lease bearing No. 439 dated 17.11.1997 in favour ...