Karnataka Court July 2009 Judgments

Dr. Ananth K. Bhat Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KarLJ643

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. Petitioners in all these petitions have sought for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 882 of 2008, 887 of 2008, 878 of 2008, 895 of 2008, 886 of 2008, 876 of 2008, 891 of 2008 and 890 of 2008 respectively pending on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.2. Facts of these cases are identical. A case has been registered by the Forest Department for an offence punishable under Section 73, Clause (d), 64-A read with Section 104 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, all the offences alleged against the petitioners are non-cognizable offence and under Section 155, Sub-section (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Police cannot investigate the matter without the necessary permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Keshav Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 557 : 1996 (4) Crimes 12...

Cit and anr. Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This is an appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (for short, the Act) questioning the correctness of the order of the Tribunal bearing No. 282/Bang/2000 dated 27-8-2003 vide Annex. A. The appeal had been admitted to examine the following three substantial questions of law:1, Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act are distinct and separate and both the deductions are permissible.2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in arriving at a conclusion that a sum of Rs. 5,75,00,000 made in respect of provisions made for bad and doubtful debts was allowable under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act ?3. Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction of bad debts written off of Rs. 3,36,78,394 under proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act despite the same having been claimed as a deduction as a provision for bad and doubtful debts of R...

Smt. Sabitha Devi W/O Late A.P. Shankar and Sri Suresh Kumar S/O Late ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ81; 2009(4)KCCR52778; 2009(6)AIRKarR112

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondent2. The facts as are necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows:It was contended by the respondent that, she was the owner of the petition schedule property having purchased the same from Syeda Fathima, who in turn said to have purchased the property from one A.P. Shankar. A.P. Shankar was the husband of the first petitioner and the lather of the second petitioner. It was contended by the respondent that, she had purchased the property as aforesaid and that her husband was a tenant in respect of the very property and was running a wine store therein; that after the purchase of the property it transpired that, she had filed a Civil Suit in O.S. No. 8108/1998 on the file of the 14th Additional City Civil Judge, seeking possession of the premises on the ground that the petitioners were unauthorised occupants. The petitioners were placed exparte in the said suit and the Civil Court on ...

ibex Gallagher Praviate Ltd. Represented by Its Manager (Finance), Mr. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ687

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.2. The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It carries on the business of manufacture and maintenance of power fencing including solar power fencing, and it is in collaboration with a company called Gallagher of New Zealand, which is well known in the business. The petitioner claims to have had wide experience in fencing for various organisations throughout the country.The first respondent is said to have invited lenders for solar power fencing in eight ranges totalling about 80 Kilometres of various forest ranges in Karnataka, for protection of wild life as well as the villagers from the wild life. The petitioner had accordingly submitted its lender on 25.11.2002. The bid of the petitioner was accepted on 27.12.2002. The agreement between the petitioner and the first respondent was entered into in respect of seven items of work and are covered under seven ...

Mr. N.K.P. Abdul Haq S/O Late Abdul Raheem, Managing Partner, Hotel Em ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3641; 2009(6)KarLJ557

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner in these petitions has sought for quashing the order dated 19th May 2009, passed by the second respondent, which is produced hereto as Annexure A.2. The brief facts of the case are that, petitioner claims that it is in Hotel Business and is the Managing Partner of a chain of Hotels/Restaurants collectively called 'Hotel Empire'. 'Hotel Empire' has under it a chain of Restaurants/Hotels in all ten in number, located at various parts of Bangalore City. 'Hotel Empire' has a rich experience of about 45 years in the said business and during this period it has earned good reputation of serving tasty and hygienic food to its customers to their satisfaction in class I category. Petitioner having rich experience over a period of nearly four and a half decades in serving vegetarian and non vegetarian food in a hygienic manner has obtained necessary trade licence from B.B.M.P. vide licence No. 860/93-94 and other licences in respect of other nine Hotels and Restau...

The Management of Hal Helicopter Division Represented by Its Chief Man ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ120

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this Appeal is if a skilled employee working in night shift dies due to heart attack, whether the employer is liable to pay the compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.2. The facts of the case are as hereunder:The respondents lodoed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bangalore, in WC/FC/CR. 10/2002 claiming compensation on the ground that the first claimant being the widow and the remaining claimants being the children of deceased Antony Cruz, who was an employee of the appellant are entitled to claim compensation on account of the sudden death of Antony Cruz during the course of employment in night shift on 24.4.2001.3. It is not in dispute that Antony Cruz has joined the appellant establishment on 1.10.1978 as Helper-B and thereafter he was promoted as Group-E and he was discharging his duties on the night of 24.4.2001, during which period, he develop...

S. Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KarLJ637

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 2708 of 2009 has sought for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 73 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chikkanayakanahalli, dated 11-2-2008.2. In Cri. P. No. 2690 of 2009 and connected matters, the petitioners have challenged C.C. No. 885 of 2008 and connected matters.3. The offences alleged against these petitioners are one under Section 24(f), 24(g) read with Rule 41, Sub-rule (2) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. However, the charge-sheet is filed only for the offences punishable under Sections 24(e), 24(f), 24(g) and 24(h) of the Karnataka Forest Act and Rule 41 of the Karnataka Forest Rules. In other cases also, the charge-sheet is filed for offence punishable under Section 73, Clause (d), Section 64A read with Section 104 of the Karnataka Forest Act inter alia alleging encroachment in the forest area.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that these ...

Sri R. Sadagopan Vs. Sri K. Rajaiah S/O Late Sri N. Kodandarama Naidu

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3302; 2009(6)KarLJ239

ORDERA.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 2(c)(iii) and 12 read with Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ('the Act' for short), to initiate Criminal Contempt of Court proceedings against the accused and punish him under Section 12 of the Act. The learned Advocate General for Karnataka, has granted permission under Section 15(1)(b) of the Act, to the complainant, to initiate Criminal Contempt Proceedings against the accused.2. Brief facts, which are necessary to consider this petition, could be stated as follows:K. Kuppuswamy, S/o. Late. N. Kodandarama Naidu and his brother K. Rajalah, the accused herein, were the Directors of M/s. Chamundeswari Studio and Laboratory Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act. Said K. Kuppuswamy, has formed a Trust, under the name K.K. Foundation and Public Charitable Trust, which is registered. K. Kuppuswamy is stated to have executed a Will dated 27.09.2006, bequeathing therein, his e...

Vijayashree Marketers and ors. Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporati ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ170

ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. These writ petitions are filed calling in question the order dated 18-4-2009 in Execution No. 22 of 2006 passed by the District Judge at Chitradurga issuing sale warrant in respect of B and C Schedule properties.2. In Misc. No. 30 of 1996 the respondent secured a decree against the petitioners for recovery of money. Since the petitioners failed to pay the decretal amount the respondent initiated execution proceedings in Execution No. 22 of 2006 on the file of District Judge, Chitradurga. The petitioners entered appearance before the Executing Court and filed objections opposing the execution proceedings. The Executing Court vide order dated 13-7-2007 rejected the objections filed by the petitioners. This order of the Trial Court had become final. Thereafter the Executing Court verified the affidavit filed by the respondent with regard to the identity details of the property to be sold and under the impugned order issued the sale warrant. Aggrieved by this ...

T. Krishna S/O Thimmarayasetty Vs. the Branch Manager Bangalore City C ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR4103

ORDERA.S. Pachhapure, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order discharging the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in respect of the charge for offences punishable under Sections 204, 409, 418 and 420 IPC by invoking the provisions of Section 239 Cr.P.C.2. Sans unnecessary details the facts relevant for the purpose of this revision are as under:The third respondent issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 3,40,000/- on 02.07.2004 and on presentation of the said cheque to the second respondent bank for encashment through the first respondent bank, the cheque was returned with an endorsement of insufficient funds and also on the ground that the cheque was staled. It is thereafter that the petitioner alleging that the cheque has been destroyed by the bank authorities filed the complaint before the Magistrate requesting to take action against the respondents for the aforesaid offences.3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence as against respondent Nos. 1 and ...