Karnataka Court August 2009 Judgments

Smt. Varalakshmi W/O R. Raju Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Secreta ...

Court: Karnataka

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 4th August 2009 made in Writ Petition No. 13703/2009 where under, the learned Single Judge applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and Ors. : (2000) 8 SCC 216, that Courts' intervention should not be sought in order to effectuate the interruption, obstruction of the election proceedings and judicial remedy, if any, should be availed by the aggrieved parties after the holding of elections, refused to grant stay in respect of election to the post of President and Vice-President of Taluka Panchayat, Bangalore East.2.1. The admitted fact is that after notifying the election schedule on 18th May 2009, by way of corrigendum dated 15th May 2009, the Government proposed to revise the allotment of reservation issued on 5th May 2009.2.2. As per the earlier notification dated 5th May 2009, the allotment of reservation for the post of President was among BC-B(W). But as per, ...

Siddartha K.M. S/O Manjunath K.J. and Vs. the Assistant Director Exami ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KCCRSN243

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. Petitioners in these writ petitions are challenging the communications dated 10.08.2009 issued by the 1st respondent -Assistant Director (Examination), Pre-University Education, Bangalore.2. By Annexure-Q - endorsement, petitioner No. 1-Siddartha K.M. is informed that as he has not taken reexamination in Mathematics after rejection of his results of March, 2009 examination in respect of Chemistry and Biology subjects, he is shown to have failed in Mathematics. According to the respondent-authorities, petitioner No. 1 ought to have rejected the results in Mathematics subject as well as he had scored only 30 marks therein. Admittedly, petitioner No. 1 had scored 30 marks in Mathematics, 45 in Chemistry and 41 in Biology and was declared passed. He chose to reject the result of Chemistry and Biology and appeared for reexamination during June, 2009 for these two subjects and has now scored 63 in Chemistry and 70 in Biology. He did not opt to reject the result in Mathe...

Smt. Susheelamma Wife of Achutha Rao, Vs. Sri. J. Uttamchand Son of Ja ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3918

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The appellants herein are challenging the legality and correctness of the Judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 10553/96 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore, dt.2.1.2003. The Cross objections are filed by the respondent challenging the direction issued by the Court below directing him to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- within a period of three months.2. Since the appeal as well as the Cross-objections are arising out of the Judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 10553/96, we have taken up these two matters together and for the sake of convenience the parties would he referred to as per their status before the court below.3. According to the plaint averments, the 1st defendant - Smt. Susheelamraa is the owner of the plaint schedule property bearing old No. 139, later No. B-18 and further No. 143 and present No. 937 situated at old Taluk Cucheri Road, Nagarthpet, Bangalore. She acquired the same under registered sale deed dt.22.8.86. Defendant-2 is her husban...

Gadigi Mineral Mining Co., a Private Ltd. Company Incorporated Under t ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The following questions have been referred to the Full Bench in W.P. No. 17828/2007, by Order of Reference dated 15.07.2009:(i) In view of proviso to Section 11(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957, whether the applications filed prior to notification made under Rule 59(1) of the M.C. Rules, 1960 require preference over the applications filed pursuant to the notification? and(ii) Whether the Judgment of the Division Bench dated 12.03.2009 made in Writ Appeal No. 807/2007 and connected writ appeals, requires reconsideration in view of the proviso to Section 11(2) of the MMDR Act as per which, the applications which had been received prior to the publication of such notification in respect of the lands notifying the areas for grant of mining lease shall be deemed to have been received on the same day for the purpose of assigning priority?2.1. The essential facts of the case, leading to the Order of Reference of the above questions before this Bench are as follows:2.2. W.P. No. 17828/2007 is filed...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Kabadi Chikkanagusa and Sons

Court: Karnataka

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Appeal by the Commissioner of Customs against the order passed by the CESTAT wherein the Tribunal took the view that an effort on the part of the Department to recover any excess refund to the tune of Rs. 2,30,687/- as amount wrongly refunded in terms of the earlier order passed on refund claim and refunded in terms of cheque dated 15-9-1999 for a sum of Rs. 2,30,687/- through its authorised Custom House agent M/s S. Natesa Iyer & Co who incidentally had also functioned as the agent for the clearance of the goods at the time of import, was barred by the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 28 of the Customs Act 1962.2. The refund claim had been made by the importer, who had earlier imported certain weaving machines which was used in the manufacturing activity of the importer and for which a total duty of Rs. 16,88,555/- had been paid in terms of bill of entry dated 31-3-1999.3. The Assessing Officer who had allowed the refund was of the view that it ...

Saurashtra Ferrous (P) Ltd. Rep. by Its Deputy General Manaer Sri. K. ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These writ petitions are disposed of by this common order since they involve common question of law and fact and are filed by the same petitioner.2. It is the case of the petitioner in both these writ petitions:(i) that writ petitioner is a registered Private Limited company and is engaged in the manufacture of low ash metallurgical coke (met coke) at Porbandar and Mundra of Kutch District, Gujarat;(ii) that in response to the notification dated 15.3.2003 application was filed by the petitioner in respect of the land described in Sl. No. 12 seeking for grant of mining lease over an area of 350 and 250 acres respectively;(iii) that the application was filed for grant of mining lease contending that iron ore will be used for captive mining; and(iv) that the power of affording opportunity under Rule 26(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') could not be delegated to the Officer subordinate to the Government as person who hears wo...

Mr. Mukesh P. Patel S/O Late P.R. Patel Vs. Vijay Mukesh Chits (P) Ltd ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERSubhash B.Adi, J.1. Petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 26510/2005 pending on the file of the XII A.C.M.M.. Bangalore City.2. Respondent has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the XII A.CM.ML. Bangalore. Same is registered as P.C.R. No. 16371/2007.3. The learned Magistrate based on the complaint, sworn statement and the material produced by the complainant was pleased to order for registration of the case and also issue of summons. At this stage, petitioner who is arrayed as accused No. 3 has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings insofar as he is concerned.4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, complaint is misconceived insofar as petitioner is concerned, as the petitioner has resigned as a Director of the first accused Company on 31.3.2007 and according to the complaint...

Jagadish Chidananda Kore Vs. the State of Karnataka,depatment of Law,r ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3540

1.The petitioner seeks for a writ of certiorari to quash the Notification dated 12-4-2007 bearing No. OE 167 PPE 2007 vide Annexure-A.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A.K.Kouashetty, submits that at the request of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent has been appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor vide the impugned Notification dated 12-4-2007 vide Annexure-A. He contends that the impugned Notification is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of K.V.SHIVA REDDY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2005(4) Crimes 518 (Kar.) that there are no reasons in the impugned order to justify the said appointment; that the impugned order has been passed mechanically on the mere asking by respondent No. 3 and that the appointment is not a suo motu appointment, but due to the fact that the injured person is politically influential; that the Director of Prosecution is the best Judge as to who should conduct the trial and that by virtue of the impugned order aspersions...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Agrotech Foods Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(249)ELT348(Kar)

Aravind Kumar, J.1. The Revenue is in appeal questioning the order of the CESTAT dated 11-2-2005 passed in appeal No. C/4/2003, final order No. 213/2004 where under the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and remanded the matter to the original authority to reconsider the refund and grant the same without applying the provisions of unjust enrichment on the ground that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said provisions are not applicable and has further directed that refund due to the respondent herein should be granted and for the said purpose the matter has been remanded.2. It is this order which is questioned by the revenue. At the time of admission of the appeal on 31-1-2006 while admitting the appeal this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether the tribunal was right in directing the appellant to refund the duty paid by the Respondent, without application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment?(ii) Whether the Tr...

Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Reptd. by Its Managing Director, Mr. Dinesh Him ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERSubhash B.Adi, J.1. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C. No. 22346/2001 pending on the file of 10th Addl. C.M.M. Bangalore City.2. Respondent has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 342, 365, 387, 417, 419, 420, 426, 440, 506b r/w Sections 24, 25, 26 and 34 of the IPC.3. The learned Magistrate after recording sworn statement and considering the material produced by the complainant, ordered for issue of summons and now posted for evidence.4. Complainant had filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. interalia seeking direction to the accused No. 1 or its M.D. to produce the Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.) entered into between the first accused and complainant on 16.4.1994. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 21.2.2007 rejected the said application and directed both the parties to go on with the matter on the day to day basis. The said order was called in question before the IV Addl. City C...