Karnataka Court July 2009 Judgments

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Now Represented by Its Regional Manager Vs ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3773

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Respondents 1 to 3 herein, instituted in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for short 'tribunal') a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988, (for short 'Act') on 6.11.2002 to award compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-. 4th respondent herein was the 1st respondent and the appellant was the 2nd respondent, in the said claim petition. For the sake of convenience, parties would hereafter be referred to with reference to their ranks in the claim petition.2. Brief facts of the case are: Petitioners are the widow and children of, one Chandrappa S/o. late. Dasegowda of Narayanaghattahalll village in Arsikere Taluk. Said Chandrappa, owned a Motor Vehicle, Maxicab bearing No. KA-18-3125. On 27.8.2002, Chandrappa while travelling in his said vehicle to go Tiptur, on account of the rash and negligent driving by its driver, which resulted in an accident, sustained injuries. Injured Chandrappa was immediately shifted to a hospital for treatment. Two days l...

Amco Batteries Limited Vs. Nil

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ679

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. Co. P. No. 23 of 2009 is filed by the Transferee Company and Co. P. No. 24 of 2009 is filed by the Transferor Company.2. These petitions are filed for sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation of the Transferor Company with the Transferee Company. The Scheme of Amalgamation is at Annexure-E.3. The Transferee Company was incorporated on 19-5-1955 with the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, with main objects to acquire properties movable and immovable including goodwill belonging to any person, firm or company engaged in the manufacture of batteries and take over the execution of any contract or contracts by such person, firm or company, etc. The registered office of the Transferee Company is situated at 3rd Floor, Unity Building, Tower Block, J.C. Road, Bangalore-560 002. The authorised share capital of the Transferee Company is Rs. 15,00,00,000/- divided into 15,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 100/- each and Rs. 5,00,00,000 divided into 5,00,000/- preference shares of Rs...

Cit and anr. Vs. N. Srirama Reddy (Decd.)

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Kar)541

Aravind Kumar, J.1. The above appeal is filed by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'C' in Misc. Petn. No. 104/Bang/2003 and in ITA No. 864/Bang/1996, dated 13-11-2003 and 17-4-2003 respectively. The above appeal came to be admitted by this court on 12-7-2004 and the substantial question of law formulated for consideration by this court at the time of admission is as follows:Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the valuation as adopted by the assessee should be accepted which was not based on any comparative sale instances or any accepted method of valuation adopted by ignoring the various materials and circumstances under which the assessing officer had correctly valued per square feet of property at Rs. 332.335 and consequently recorded a perverse finding.2. One N. Srirama Reddy had filed original return of income on 6-2-1982 in respect of the assessment year 1981-82 and the assessment came to be completed on 13-3-1983...

Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Tata Coffee Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Kar)38

Aravind Kumar, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (Act, for short) is against the order dt. 24th Feb., 2004 passed by Tribunal, Bangalore Bench-B, in ITA No. 526/Bang/1999 relating to the asst. yr. 1995-96.2. The assessee is engaged in the business of cultivating coffee, selling it and exporting the same among other businesses. During the assessment year, the assessee sold plant, machinery, 'equipment and technology for 'manufacture of quartz alarm time pieces at Hyderabad for a sum of Rs. 2,56,50,000 to Titan Industries Ltd. As per the sale agreement the assessee was not entitled to deal with watch sales for a period of 10 years. The assessee filed a return of income on 30th Nov., 1995 declaring a total income of Rs. 7,49,630. The AO found during the course of assessment proceedings that a sum of Rs. 30,00,000 had been paid to the assessee as non-competition fee by Titan Industries. Since the SIFCO Vender which was manufacturing alarm time pieces wa...

Union of India (Uoi) by Its Secretary Ministry of Health and Family We ...

Court: Karnataka

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. All these petitions are disposed of by this common order since they involve common questions of law and facts.2. The main question that arises for determination in these Writ Petitions is as to:Whether the employees of the Post and Telegraph Department who have not availed the benefit of Central Government Health Scheme would be entitled to avail the benefit of the said scheme after their retirement on attaining the age of superannuation?3. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O.A. No. 704/2001, answered the above question by holding that the Central Government Health Scheme can be availed by persons who have already retired from service including the persons who retire from the Posts and Telegraphs Department if they have not availed Central Government Health Scheme while in service. Being aggrieved by the same, the Central Government has preferred the above Writ Petitions and similarly, in all other petitions, which are clubbed Central Administ...

Sri. S.R. Channappa S/O Sri. Rangappa Gowda Vs. Sri. Devendrappa S/O S ...

Court: Karnataka

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. This is a claimant's appeal. Claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988, was allowed in part. Compensation of Rs. 32,493/- with Interest at 6% p.a. was awarded Dissatisfied with the amount awarded and contending the same to be not just, this appeal has been preferred for awarding just compensation.2. Claimant has deposed as PW.1. Dr. Sharathkumar Rao is PW.2. Exs.P1 to P13 have been marked. For respondents RW.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R8 were marked. On appreciation of the evidence, it was found by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that, the claimant has sustained injuries on account of actionable wrong on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and hence, the said compensation was awarded.3. Finding of the tribunal on Issue No. 1 has not been questioned by filing cross appeal or cross objection by the respondents. They have accepted the liability to pay the compensation as awarded by the tribunal. In the circumstances, it i...

Sri B.K. Gopala Krishna S/O Sri Krishna Sastry, Second Division Assist ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009(3)Kar3409

ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the order passed by the first respondent-management dated 8.7.2004 (Annexure 'U') imposing punishment of his compulsory retirement and the order dated 4.8.2006 in M.A(EAT). No. 20/2004 passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (Annexure' AA').2. The petitioner was appointed as a Second Division Assistant in the first respondent-Institution on 3.6.1985. It is not in dispute that his appointment was approved by the Director of Collegiate Education, Bangalore. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the first respondent-management as per Annexure 'P' dated 24.12.2003 on the following charges:That you Sri Gopalakirshna B.K. while working as Second Division Assistant in Bharatiya Samskriti Vidyapith Arts & Commerce College for Women, Vijayanagar, Bangalore -560 040, though required to obtain previous sanction of the Principal of the college, did not obtain such sanction, for t...

Mohan Multha Exporters Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its Executive Mr. Prav ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ593

1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 25th July, 2009 passed by the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar wherein the first petitioner-Company has been informed that it has obtained transport permit by making misrepresentation and thus the matter requires investigation and until the investigation is completed by the Department of Mines and Geology, it should stop further loading of sand and detain the Ship at Karwar Port.2. It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner was given permit by the first respondent to excavate and remove 1,166 tonnes of sand from Survey No. 48 of Kerawadi village, Karwar Taluk and he has paid royalty of Rs. 35,000/-. It is the further case of the petitioner that he addressed a letter to the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology on 16th July, 2009 seeking permission to export sand and it had also made an applicati...

Devendrappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ543

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. Learned Government Advocate is directed to accept notice for respondent 3 and also to appear for respondents 1 and 2 who are served and unrepresented. Memo of appearance to be filed within a period of four weeks.2. In all these petitions the grievance of the petitioners is that the application filed by the petitioners seeking regularisation of their unauthorised occupation and cultivation of the lands, in the lands as detailed in the respective writ petition has not yet been considered and disposed of by the Land Grant Committee in accordance with law. In this regard, the petitioners have also placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 468 of 2008 disposed of on 18-1-2008, wherein this Court had directed the consideration of the application after the Constitution of the Regularisation Committee. The petitioners contend that subsequent to the said order they have approached the respondents on several occasions and the endorsement being issued i...

Yashaswi Convention Hall Vs. the Manager, Karnataka State Financial Co ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ555

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The father of petitioners 1 and 2 and husband of petitioner 3 along with respondent 3 had taken a loan under the deed of hypothecation in favour of respondents 1 and 2. There was default by the borrower. Hence, as on 22-7-2009, the outstanding dues is Rs. 88,96,047/-. Since the petitioners are chronic defaulters, the property in question i.e., Marriage Hall and Theatre were seized under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act'). It appears thereafter, on 29-5-2009 and on 10-7-2009, paper publications were issued indicating that the Convention Hall is proposed to be sold for realising the loan borrowed by the petitioners. At this point of time, this writ petition is filed.2. On notice, Mr. Bipin Hegde, learned Counsel has entered appearance. He submits that if the petitioners deposit 50% of the interest arrears, with other debts, the order of possessing the property under Section 29 of the Act would be recalled.3. Apparently, it is notic...