Karnataka Court July 2009 Judgments

N.M. Giri S/O S.N. Muniswami, Vs. Amr Power Pvt. Ltd.,

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ267; 2009(6)AIRKarR44

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. Both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order, in as much as, common question of law arises for consideration.2. In both these writ petitions the petitioners are essentially questioning the notification issued by the State under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short the Act').3. The facts germane far the disposal of thee we petitions are as follows:In both these writ petitions the petitioners are the owners of several properties situate in Narikombu village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada Dist. It is their case that the properties in question are adjacent to the main road. The petitioners are cultivating rubber plant areca nut and banana plants. They are entirely dependent on the income halved from the said lands. The first respondent in W.P. 13019/08 and the second respondent to W.P. 15635-36/08 to a Private company engaged in generation of electricity and electricity transmission (for short 'AR'). The AMR filed an application ...

Abdul Lahief Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ591

ORDERA.S. Pachhapure, J.1. The learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice of the petition. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the Counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader, the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioners have challenged the order rejecting their application, for interim custody of 17 He-Buffaloes seized by Ullal Police for contravention of the provisions of Rules 2, 5 and 6 of the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1966 and Rule 74 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 read with Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.3. The facts relevant for the purpose of these revisions are as under:It is on 6-12-2008 in the morning at about 4.30 a.m. when the CPI Mangalore Rural was on patrolling duty near Naganakatte Village found that the petitioners were transporting 17 He-buffaloes in a lorry bearing Registration No. KA-19 B-7959 and for the commission...

Smt. Rekha Parashuram Kattimani W/O Sri. Parashuram Kattimani Vs. Stat ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3656

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. Common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision making, hence, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioners, aggrieved by the notification dated 15-05-2009 providing reservation by way of rotation to the posts of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha in the 29 Zilla Panchayaths, under the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993, for short 'Act', have preferred these petitions.3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 12889/2009 has filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC dated 14-05-2009 to amend the prayer column in the Memorandum of writ petition for an additional prayer to declare as unconstitutional The Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservation to the Post of Adyaksha & Upadyaksha of Zilla Panchayat) Rules 2005, for short Rules', as beyond the purview of rule making power of the State under Section 311 of the Act. The application is allowed as it is not o...

Smt. Rajalakshmi W/O Janardhan Senior Assistnat/incharge Aao Vs. Karna ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3505; 2009(6)KarLJ197

ORDERAravind Kumar, J.1. The petitioner is seeking for quashing of orders dated 31-12-2001 & 20-12-2002 at Annexures 'C' and 'E' respectively, passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing a minor penalty of 'withholding one annual increment failing due next with cumulative effect' and the Appellate Authority's order confirming the said imposition of minor penalty.2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are: In the special report of the Accounts Officer, Internal Audit, Central Division, K.P.T.C.L, Bangalore, dated 18-9-2001 it was noticed that several lapses/commissions /omissions had occurred during the incumbency of one N. Gopal who was working as cashier at C-1 sub-division which resulted in misappropriation of cash to an extent of two lakhs temporarily and R. 2.5 lakhs permanently and thus had caused financial loss to the Corporation. During the said period petitioner was discharging her duties as Senior Assistant and while discharging her duties as cash officer at sam...

Smt. B.R. Premakumari W/O Satish (Late) Vs. Supraja Credit Co-op. Soci ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3477; 2009(6)KarLJ127

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. Respondent is the complainant He filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In support of the complaint, his sworn statement was recorded and documents connected with the offence were also produced.2. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 16.9.2006 directed the registration of the complaint and also issue summons in terms of the following order:On perused of the sworn statement and the available records, the complainant has made out a primafacie case against the accused and there are sufficient material grounds to proceed against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order....

J. Venkatesh Vs. the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal and ors ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ511

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. One M/s. Sujatha Handlooms borrowed certain amounts from respondent 2-Corporation Bank. The said Sujatha Handlooms was not in a position to discharge the loan. Hence, proceedings were initiated to recover the amount in O.S. No. 1391 of 1993. The said suit was transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal and treated as original application. The said application was allowed and the Bank was given liberty to realise the decretal amount of Rs. 6,82,511/- by sale of the mortgaged properties. It appears, the said borrower M/s. Sujatha Hondlooms questioned the said order before the Appellate Tribunal at Chennai and the same was dismissed. An appeal was also preferred and dismissed. A public auction was conducted on 11-12-2008 pursuant to a notification. The petitioner claims that he is a successful bidder in the auction and accordingly made deposits in terms of the notification. The deposit made by the petitioner is to the tune of Rs. 81,81,010/-. A memo is also filed by th...

Smt. Aruna @ Suvarna and anr. Vs. Marilingappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3728

ORDERV. Jagannathan, J.1. The short point for consideration in this petition filed under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code is whether the evidence by way of affidavit is permissible in respect of maintenance proceedings initiated under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners herein claiming to be wife and daughter respectively of the respondent, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance and the Trial Court by its order dated 23-2-2008 allowed the maintenance petition by awarding Rs. 500/- as maintenance per month to each of the two petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent-husband preferred a criminal revision petition before the Learned Sessions Judge in Crl. R.P. No. 37/2008 and the main contention put forwarded was that the Trial Court was in error in accepting the affidavits filed by the respective parties and Learned Sessions Judge consequently allowed t...

Syndicate Bank, a Bank Constituted Under the Banking Companies (Acquis ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3343; 2009(6)KarLJ286

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The management in this appeal is challenging the legality and the correctness of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 9721/2005 dated 15th July, 2005.2. The facts of this case are as hereunder:The respondent was working as a Clerk in the appellant-Bank. On the ground that he misbehaved with his colleagues and abused there in a filthy language and assaulted them in a hotel premises (outside the appellant's Bank premises), the charges were levelled against him. An enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry the charges are said to have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepting the enquiry report, having heard the respondent-employee terminated him from service relying upon Clause 5(c) of Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-2002.3. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Before the Appellate Authority the respondent contended that Clause 5(c) of the Bipartite Settlement does not attract charges levelled against...

Aishwarya Consolidates (P) Ltd. Rep. by Sri K. Srinivasan, Director Vs ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3052; (2010)27VST176(Karn); 2009(4)KCCR2412(D.B)

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This appeal had been admitted on 7.7.2009 and had been directed to be listed for further orders today with the understanding that the matter can be disposed of. However, it is wrongly listed as for admission again.2. Be that as it may, as Sri Manjunath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent is ready in the matter, we have heard Sri. Atul K. Alur, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri. Manjunath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent on the merits of this matter.3. This is an appeal by the dealer under Section 24 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 [for short 'the Act'] directed against the order dated 24.12.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-1 [copy at Annexure-C), who in exercise of his suo motu powers under Section 22-A[2] of the Act had revised and set aside the order passed by the first appellate authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes...

Lohadri Mineral Enterprises a Partnership Firm Represented HereIn by I ...

Court: Karnataka

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of mining iron ore.The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of mining iron ore.2. The incontroverted facts of the case are:(i) that on 17th July, 1987, they applied for grant of mining lease in an extent of an area of 204.6 hectares of land situated in Subbarayanahalli village, Kumaraswamy Block Forest, Sandur Range Forest, Bellary District, pursuant to which on 11th February, 1988, the Forest Department recommended 50 acres of forest area for grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner;(ii) that the recommendation was rejected by the Conservator of Forests vide letter dated 3rd October, 1988;(iii) that aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Principal Conservator of Forests, who in turn by order dated 20th July, 1992 directed the Deputy Chief Conservator of Forests to inspect the area and reconsider the application;(iv) that on 26th Augu...