Karnataka Court July 2009 Judgments

Sri B.V. Puttegowda S/O Venkategowda, Advocate and Ex-mayor Vs. the Ch ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. Petitioner, a practising Advocate and former Mayor of Bangalore City Corporation, has filed the above writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to:(i) direct the respondents to implement the Dr. K. Kasturirangan Expert Committee Report submitted in March 2008 forthwith and hold elections to BBMP accordingly as per Annexure-B in the month of March, 2008.(ii) grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant with costs.2. According to petitioner, the Government of Karnataka by notification in Government Order No. UDD 86 ML 2006(4) Bangalore dated 02.11.2006, appointed an Expert Committee headed by Dr. K. Kasturirangan and other four members to-(i) review the administration structures and legal frame work currently operating within Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR); (ii) organize the Institutional Frame Work and to recommend alternative governance having regard to the tenets of the 74th Constitutional Amendment Bill;(iii) examine and sug...

J.K. Tyres and Industries Ltd., Vikrant Tyre Plant (Formerly Vikrant T ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. These three petitions have been filed by the Management assailing the order passed by the Labour Court, Mysore in Reference Nos. 133/1998 dated 30.07.2008 Reference No. 183/2001 dated 11-11-2008 and Reference No. 169/1999 dated 3.1.2007 and 11.08.2008 respectively and the order dated 30-7-2008 passed on I.A. filed for production of documents.2. The Management filed its objections to the said I.A. stating that the first party is adopting the delayed tactics simply to drag the matters. The Labour Court having found that the matters were very old, allowed the applications. While so ordering, the Labour Court observed that the relevancy and admissibility of the documents is kept open, in other words, for formal production of documents, the Labour Court allowed the applications. So far as marking of documents is concerned, it would be considered by the Labour Court itself during the course of the enquiry at the time of adducing additional evidence. Being aggrie...

Cit and anr. Vs. Late Ramakrishna Hegde Through L.R.

Court: Karnataka

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This appeal by the revenue under Section 250A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in Appeal No. 817/Bang/2006, dated 13-4-2007.2. The assessee is an individual and the assessment year is 2000-01. The assessment had been initially concluded under Section 143 of the Act in the normal course.3. The Income Tax Officer purporting to have come across certain fixed deposit receipts in the name of the assessee found in the course of recovery proceedings, particularly, by invoking Section 226(3) of the Act, had thought it fit to reopen the assessment for the year 2000-01 being of the view that the source of investment for issue of the fixed deposit receipts was required to be explained properly.4. The assessees legal heir had been called upon to explain the same by reopening the concluded assessment by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act as per notice dated 26-...

Flemingo Duty Free Shops Pvt. Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the P ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3462; 2009(5)KarLJ480

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Advocate General on behalf of the respondents.2. The factual background is as follows:The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a subsidiary of M/s Flemingo International Limited, Dubai.The petitioner has set-up 'Duty-Free Shops' at various international airports in India. This was enabled by the Airports Authority of India (hereinafter called 'AAI' for brevity) calling for lenders to construct, develop and operate such shops at several International airports, including the Bangalore International Airport (hereinafter referred to as 'BIA' for brevity). The petitioner's parent company was a successful bidder. The AAI had awarded a licence in the year 2004 to establish and operate Duly-Free Shops at the arrival and departure terminals of the BIA. The petitioner is the recognised subsidiary in terms of the licence, authorised lo operate the shops.The petitioner has obtained a licenc...

Mohammad Iyub S/O Haji Kaleel Ahamed Vs. Muzaheed Pasha S/O Mohammad I ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ294

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner. The respondents who are served remain un-represented.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner was a claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation in respect of the injuries suffered in a motor accident. The respondent was the owner of the vehicle at the lime of accident. The claim was allowed after contest. The insurer of the vehicle was absolved of liability. There was an award against the respondent in a sum of Rs. 3,91,301/-. The respondent failed to satisfy the award. The petitioner had sought to execute the award and filed an execution petition claiming as a decree-holder before the Tribunal and sought for attachment and sale of movable and immovable properly of the respondent and for arrest of the respondent and detention in civil prison.Notice of the petition having been served - the respondent appeared and claimed that he had no movable or immovable properly - and possesse...

N. Jagadish and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ593

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned Counsel is directed to take notice for the 2nd and 3rd respondents-BDA. Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the 1st respondent.2. In these writ petitions, petitioners are seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent-BDA to consider the representation dated 28-5-2009 submitted by them vide Annexure-J requesting for allotment of sites bearing Nos. 12 and 13 carved out in Sy. No. 135 wherein they have put up construction.3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of site bearing Nos. 12 and 13 carved out of Sy. No. 135 of Ullalu Village. According to them the site measures 60 feet x 80 feet. The BDA has acquired the land in question by issuing preliminary notification dated 15-4-2002 for formation of Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout, II Stage. The entire extent of 4.9 acres comprised in Sy. No. 135 was notified as needed for the purpose. Final notification under Section 19 of the Bangalore Development...

Regal Fashions I/S, a Partnership Firm Rep. by Its Partner, Sunil A. M ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has sought for setting aside the order dated 5-7-2007 at Annexure-K passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and also to set aside the order of the first respondent dated 3-9-2001 at Annexure-G and for such other reliefs.2. The prayer to declare paragraph 32A of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 as ultravires the provision of Section 5 and Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is given up by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in view of the amendment brought to the EPF Employees Pension (II Amendment Scheme) 2008.3. As it transpires, the petitioner commenced manufacturing and exporting business on 10-6-1996. Thereafter, alleging non disclosure and non-payment of the EPF contribution towards coverage for the employees, the first respondent sent a letter dated 3-9-2001 through RPAD as per Annexure-G asking them to pay damages of Rs. 79,739/- ...

Annappa Naika S/O Lokya Naika and Vs. Chand Basha S/O T.K. Abdul Satta ...

Court: Karnataka

N.K. Patil, J.1. The appellants, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 9th August 2004 passed in MVC No. 660/2001 by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn) and Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimoga, (in short 'Claims Tribunal'), have presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation, on the ground that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is inadequate, in so far as it relates to loss of dependency, for not awarding any compensation towards love and affection and also for apportioning the compensation to respondents-5 to 7.2. The deceased Sri. Lokyanaika was an Arrack vendor. The 2th appellant and 5th respondent are the wives; the 1st appellant and respondents-6 and 7 are the sons and 4th respondent is the mother of the deceased Sri. Lokyanaika. That on 18.9.2001 the deceased was proceeding by walk from his Arrack shop to his house on the left side of the road at about 9.45 p.m. and while he was proceeding on B.H Road near Channabasaveshwara Temple, ...

The General Manager Karnataka Bank Limited Now Represented by Its Mana ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ371

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in confirming the order passed by the C.G.I.T., Bangalore, dated 3rd May, 1999, in C.R.No. 16/1990 concurring with the view taken by the C.G.I.T. with the order of dismissal passed by the appellant-employee was bad in law on account of non-obtaining of APPROVAL as required under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The facts leading to this case are as hereunder:The respondent-workman was working as a sub-staff in the appellant-bank. On account of his misconduct an enquiry was initiated which resulted in punishing the respondent. Challenging the order of punishment the respondent-workman preferred an appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore and the order passed by the appellant-Bank came to be set aside by the Industrial Tribunal, in Reference No. 6/1978. Challenging the order passed by the Industrial T...

The Central Muslim Association of Karnataka Rep. by Its General Secret ...

Court: Karnataka

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Land Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge In W.P. No. 3411/2003 dated 17-02-2003 the present appeal is filed.2. The facts relating to this case are as hereunder:The appellant was the owner of 10 Acres of land situated In Sy. No. 31 (new No. 45/01) of Ungdheer Mallasandra, Hoskote Taluk. The land was leased in favour of Late Ramalah, who was the father of the respondents 3 to 6 herein. The lease in favour of Ramalah is not in dispute. After the death of Ramalah; his children were cultivating the land. Since the rainfall in Hoskote Taluk started receding, on the request of the tenant, the appellant permitted the tenant to grow casuarina trees instead of raising crops like ragi and pulses, etc. Accordingly casuarina trees were raised.3. On vesting the land due to Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the respondent No. 3 filed application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights. The occupancy right was granted In favour of ...