Karnataka Court June 2009 Judgments

V.M. Thiaggu S/O. V. Muthumanickam Gounder and V.M. Raghu S/O. V. Muth ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners. The Counsel for the respondent No. 2 remained absent though the matter was called out twice.2. The facts, as stated are that the petitioners are the residents of Pollachi Village in Coimbatore District in Tamil Nadu. The petitioners, who are stated to be the Directors of a Company, in the name of M/s PRT Exports and also doing business in Bangalore, had taken a premises on rent from the second respondent. The petitioners had also availed loans from the Stale Bank of Mysore for purposes of their business. The said Bank had granted Cash Credit facility for purposes of the petitioners' industry, engaged in the manufacture of clothes and had also grunted Rs. 70 Lakh under Foreign Demand Bill Purchase and under Foreign Inland Letters of Credit limit etc.The second respondent had offered collateral security of her property bearing No. 95, in Koramangala Industrial Lay-out, 5th Block, Bangalore, for obtaining loan facilities fr...

T.S. Khadeer Ahmed S/O Abdul Khudus Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. by Sta ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010CriLJ614

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner in this petition has sought to quash or to set-aside the impugned notice dated 30th June 2008 bearing No. CCB/ & (sic) 08 issued by the fourth respondent at Annexure H and all further proceedings pursuant to the said notice and to award exemplary cost payable by respondent Nos. 3 to 6.2. The facts in brief are that, petitioner is a licensed catering contractor and doing catering business with the Indian Railway Catering Tourism Corporation Limited. The petitioner has obtained the necessary licence to manage a stall in Yeshwanthpur Railway Station and on board service in Brindavan Express Train No. 2639-40, MAS-SBC. The said licence was awarded in view of cancellation of licence granted in favour of the fifth respondent after coming to know that he had misrepresented the Indian Railway Catering Tourism Corporation Ltd. by producing false documents and not catering as per the terms and conditions of the licence granted in favour of said respondent. Keepin...

Century Club Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010[17]STR337

V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The further submissions of Sri Ravi Shankar is heard on behalf of the appellant.2. The correctness of the order of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore dated 25-8-2008 passed in appeal No. ST/340/2007 [ : 2009 (13) S.T.R. 68 (Tri.-Bang.)] is questioned in this appeal urging various grounds in support of the questions of law framed and prayed to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal answering the questions of law in favour of the appellant.3. The ground of attack of the impugned order is that the same is contrary to the following decisions of the Apex Court and therefore it is vitiated in law.(a) Collector v. Sunrise Structural & Engg. (P) Ltd. 2003 (154) E.L.T. A241 (S.C.)(b) SACI Allied Products Ltd. v. CCE : 2005 (183) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.).(c) CCE v. Gammon Far Chems Ltd. : 2003 (152) E.L.T. 28 (S.C.).(d) Commissioner v. Goodluck Industries 2000 (120) E.L.T. A66 (S.C).Hence it is contended that question No....

Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Ltd., Now Known as Jsw Steel Ltd. Rep. by It ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KCCR2566(D.B)

I. CORE ISSUES1. The above batch of writ appeals are directed against the order dated 7th August, 2008 made in writ petition No. 21608 of 2005, raising the following core issues for our consideration:(i) Whether it is proper for this Court to exercise its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate on the policy decision with respect to substantial development of the State and quash the notification made under Rule 59(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'MC Rules') notifying the area available for mining iron ore?(ii) Whether the application, for grant of mining lease for an area, without a notification under Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules, 1960 notifying the said area as available for mining, can be considered for grant of mining lease under Section 11(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, (for short 'MMDR Act') as, such application is premature and shall not be entertained as per Rule 60 of the MC Rule...

Devamma W/O Late K.H. Halappa Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka Sagar Rural ...

Court: Karnataka

Jawad Rahim, J.1. This appeal is against the order passed In S.C. 40/96 dated 29.6.2001 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Shimoga, ordering confiscation of movable properties, (jewels, etc.) seized during investigation and. produced during trial marked as M.Os 1 to 28.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for both sides and perused records.3. Respondents 2 to 6 were chargesheeted and tried for the offence under Section 395, I.P.C. in S.C.40/96 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Shimoga. Considering the evidence tendered by the prosecution through 22 witnesses and 19 documents, the learned trial judge found their evidence insufficient to convict the accused for the said offence. Consequently, by judgment dated 29.6.2001 ail of them have been acquitted.4. During trial, it appears the appellant filed an application under Section 451, Cr.P.C. seeking release of the property seized in investigation and produced in trial, marked as M.Os.1 to 28. The learned judge while disposing...

Shri Pradeep Kar, Managing Director, Micro Land Limited Vs. the Asst. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]319ITR416(KAR); [2009]319ITR416(Karn)

V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 27/1/2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in ITA. No. 917/Bang/2008.2. The claim of the assessee for deduction of interest on the amounts borrowed by him for purchase of shares is disallowed by the assessing officer. In the appeal filed by him against the assessment order, the first appellate authority reversed the order of assessing authority by applying the decision of the Supreme Court reported in : [1978]115ITR519(SC) . The Revenue took up the matter in second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter called as the 'Tribunal' in short. The Tribunal reversed the decision of the first appellate authority and restored the order of assessing authority. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee is before us by filing this appeal framing substantial questions of law and urged the grounds in support of the same.3. Smt Anuradha, learned Counsel for the appellant rel...

Dr. Narendranath Shetty S/O Sri S. Shetty and Smt. Pushpa N. Shetty W/ ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR2870; 2010(1)KarLJ184

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioners are questioning the order passed by the learned trial Judge rejecting their application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to get themselves impleaded in a final decree proceeding. Copy of the impugned order is produced at Annexure-A.2. The undisputed facts relating to this proceedings can be summarized as under:The first respondent herein was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 4156/80 on the file of the first Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore which was filed for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. The first defendant in the suit one P.E. Sadashiva Rao who is no more executed a sale deed on 09.04.1991 in respect of item No. 2 of the plaint schedule in favour of the petitioner for consideration of Rs. 8,90,000/-, indicating that it is his self-acquired property and put the petitioners in possession. During the pendency of the proceedings, the first defendant i.e., P.E. Sadashiva Rao died an...

Karar Ahmed S/O. Late N.A. Khan Represented by Gpa Holder Sri A.R. Vas ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR2864; 2009(6)KarLJ694

ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioner/plaintiff in O S No. 5445/2006 on the file of XXIV Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore City, is before this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing the order dated 27.9.2007 at Annexure-A passed sustaining the objection to marking agreement of sale dated 5.5.1997 during the course of evidence of P.W-1.2. For the purpose of convenience and better understanding, the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 to 7' as arrayed in the suit3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Writ Petition may be stated as under:The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in O S No. 5445/2006 against respondent Nos. 1 to 7 for declaration that the plaintiff is absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit land bearing Sy. No. 79 measuring 4 acres and 3 guntas and a portion of land bearing No. 80 measuring 1 acre and 37 guntas both situa...

R.L. Jalappa S/O. R. Laxminarayanappa (Senior Citizen Not Claimed) Mem ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010CriLJ366; ILR2010KAR4000.

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the parties.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner was a member of Parliament when this petition was preferred in the year 2007. The second respondent is the Director, Doordarshan, Bangalore.It is the petitioner's case that he has received several complaints against the second respondent from the general public, as to the manner of his functioning, as well as allegations of corruption, misuse of official power etc. He had, by a letter dated 21.8.2006, addressed the Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting enclosing a detailed representation made against the second respondent. The said enclosure to the letter contained several apparently defamatory and scandalous statements of the higher judiciary and had named several judges of the High Court of Karnataka and a judge of the Supreme Court, who were alleged to be under the influence of the second respondent.It transpires that on account of the teller written by the p...

P.T. Shylesh S/O P.V. Tukaram, Vs. Smt Ambikapathi S/O Late S.T. Ambek ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR2911:2009AIRKarR79.

ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. Petitioners are the plaintiffs and respondents 1 to 3 are defendants 1 to 3 before the trial Court In this order for convenience, the parties are referred to their status before the trial Court.2. Plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 4507/1998 against the defendants herein and others for partition and separate possession of their share in the plaint schedule properties. The defendants 1 & 2 in their written statement have taken a specific contention that the common propositor S.T. Ambekar during his lifetime bequeathed the schedule properties under a will dated 14.09.1987. The plaintiffs denied the execution of the will. After completion of evidence on both the side, the plaintiffs filed an I.A. under Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC for appointment of handwriting expert as a Court Commissioner to compare the disputed signature on the will with that of the admitted signature of Ambekar. The trial Court under the impugned order rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs o...