Karnataka Court August 2009 Judgments

Wipro Limited Represented by Its Legal Manager Shri Vishal Mittal and ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioners in tins petition are seeking for declaration that Rule 8(b) and 18 of the Standard of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Amendment Rules 2006 is ultra vires of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. They would also seek a declaration that it is being ultra vires of the provisions of Section 39(4) and 83 of Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976.2. The matter arises in the following manner:1 The first petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of toilet and bathing soaps. According to them, moisture is an essential ingredient of such soaps, inasmuch as, it acts as a binder. The moisture contained in the soaps is subject to evaporation, which results in loss in weight of the soap. According to the petitioner, it is equally accepted that there is no scientific method to determine the exact weight vis-a-vis loss of moisture. According to the petitioner, Section 39 of the Act mandates that the declaration of net weight...

Hmt Ltd. Rep. by Its Manager (Transport), Mr. B.A. Umesh Vs. the State ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009(4)Kar4483

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. All these three petitions are disposed of by this common order. The facts in W.P. No. 4658/08 and 4166/08 are almost identical, if not similar. The facts in W.P. No. 10489/07 are slightly different. But however, the core question which falls for consideration in these petitions are same.2. The petitioners in W.P. No. 4166/08 and 4658/08 are Public Sector Undertaking coming under the administration and control of the Ministry of Defence. The controversy would relate to the Motor Vehicles Tax payable in respect of the private service vehicles operated on behalf of the contractors in respect of their companies situate at Bangalore and KGF. The purpose of making use of the transportation facilities is to ferry its employees from their residences to the factory for work and to drop them back after work. It appears, a tender was floated and the petitioners in both these writ petitions entered into an agreement with a contractor for operating buses to ply the petitio...

Bellary Steels and Alloys Limited Rep. by Its Managing Director Shri S ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for a declaration that the action of the respondents in not complying with the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 21793/2005 dated 5.9.2007 with regard to the application of the petitioner for grant of mining lease in its favour to an extent of 242.82 hectares of applied area in Ramanadurg range and village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District conseuqently upon the application dated 14.9.93, is arbitrary, illegal and unjust and in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 300-A and not in accordance with the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 21793/2005 dated 5.9.2007; and issue appropriate direction directing that the respondents shall grant mining lease in favour of the petitioner-company in accordance with the sketch map annexed to its mining lease application dated 14.9.1993 and in ...

Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the C ...

Court: Karnataka

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1.1. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act engaged in business of carrying mining activity and manufacture of stainless steel, alloy steel and rolling products through blast furnace route, having manufacturing facilities in Karnataka, Maharashtra and Goa and producing 0.8 million tonnes of steel with an annual turnover of Rs. 300 Crore providing employment for 3000 labourers, applied for grant of mining lease over an area of 36.42 Hectares in Tumti village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District for mining Iron ore and Yellow Oxide vide application No. AML 471/06 dated 15.5.2006. The petitioner also intends to invest Rs. 50 Crore with the intention to start Iron & Steel industry in the State of Karnataka which also generates direct employment for another 1000 labourers.1.2. Considering the merits of the petitioner, in the light of the matters that are required to be considered under Section 11(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation...

Sri Basavaraj C.S. S/O Shivanna C.N. and ors. Vs. the Chief Secretary ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The petitioners who are the villagers of Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District, contending that the area over an extent of 71.20 acres in Sy. No. 95 of Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District is a forest land, but respondents 1 to 4 have erroneously treated the said land as revenue land and granted mining lease in favour of 5th respondent, which was subsequently transferred to 7th respondent, have preferred the above public interest litigation for the following prayer:a) Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to cancel mining lease No. 2220 granted to the 5threspondent in so far as it relates to forest area in Sy. No. 95 of Rajathadripura Forest area measuring 71.20 acres.b) Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to take action against the 5th respondent to compensate the environmental loss caused due to illegal mining activity in t...

Shivarudrappa Maharudrappa Kari and ors. Vs. Smt. Basavva and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ37

N. Kumar, J.1. This is defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession granting 1/6th share to the first plaintiff in Sy. No. 74/1 and 1/4 share to the plaintiffs in Sy. No. 74/2 and half share to the plaintiffs in house premises bearing No. MP 102 and dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of other items. For the purpose of convenience the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.2. The subject-matter of the suit is three landed properties which are set out in 'A' Schedule, two house properties which are set out in the 'B' Schedule and three movable properties which are set out in 'C' Schedule which are annexed to the plaint.3. The case of the plaintiffs is one Maharudrappa was the propositor who had two sons viz., Basavantappa and Shivarudrappa. First plaintiff is the widow of Basavanthappa and all other plaintiffs are children of Basavanthappa and Ba...

The Manager, Nekrtc Bus Depot Vs. Bhimashankar and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3854

N.K. Patil, J.1. The instant appeal and cross objection are directed against the judgment and award dated 13.06.2007 passed in MVC No. 895/05 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge, & Member M.A.C.T. No. VII Gulbarga (for short 'the Claims Tribunal'). The Claims Tribunal by the judgment and award, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,09,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. to the claimant (respondent No. 1 in the appeal and cross objector in the cross objection).2. The appellant-Corporation contending that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is excessive and fixing the liability fully on the part of the appellant-Corporation is not justifiable has presented the instant appeal.3. The Cross Objector/claimant contending that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded just and reasonable compensation towards the heads, loss of future earning, loss of amenities, loss of earning during treatment, pain and suffering and praying to enhance the compensation under the above said heads by modifying the judgmen...

Rangamma W/O Subbaiah and Smt. Lakskmamma W/O Nagarju Vs. Mahadeva S/O ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. The petitioner has raised the challenge to the order, dt. 11.06.2009 [Annexure-E] passed by the Court of the II Addl. District Judge, Mysore on I.A. No. I in R.A. No. 38/2004.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent filed the suit against the petitioners seeking the relief of declaration and consequential permanent injunction in respect of the schedule property. The suit was decreed in part on 15.06.2004. It reads as follows:It is jurther ordered and decreed by declaring that the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant dated 23.9.1996 in respect of schedule property is null and void.It is further ordered and decreed that the plaintiff is entitled for relief of possession of the suit schedule property, and the defendants No. 1 and 2 are directed to hand over the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of this order.It is further ordered and decreed that the defendan...

Mineral Miners and Traders Rep. by Its Proprietor Sri K. Ramappa Rep. ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for quashing of the order passed by the second respondent - Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Chitradurga, dated 17.10.2008 (Annexure 'F' to the writ petition) and to direct the second respondent to refund the Earnest Money Deposit and for quashing of the notification published in the news paper dated 05.08.2009 only in so far as it pertains to auction of 2000 Metric Tonnes of Iron Ore lying in Sy. No. 9 of Ianahalli village, Hosadurga Taluk and Sy. No. 131 of Seeranakatte, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District.2. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner is having its head office at Bellary and it undertakes mining leases and also purchases mines and minerals from the open market. The office of the respondents conduct regular survey of licences issued for quarrying of mines and minerals in Bellary District as well as in Chitradurga District....

The Commissioner of Income Tax and the Joint Commissioner of Income Ta ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Kar)72; [2009]317ITR294(KAR); [2009]317ITR294(Karn)

1. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, the Act] by the revenue against the order of the income tax appellate tribunal, Bangalore bench, posing for answer the following substantial questions of law:a) Whether, the tribunal was correct in holding that the loss incurred by the assessce in the sale of shares held by its of M/s ICDS Limited is an allowable deduction despite the same having been incurred due to a personal settlement entered into by some of the directors of the assessee company with that of other members of the Manipal Group of companies and there being no business interest of the assessee involved in such sale?b) Whether, the tribunal was correct in holding that interest payments made towards acquisition of shares of M/s ICDS Ltd. pursuant to the awards entered into by the directors of the company with other rival factions of Manipal Pax group would amount to an expenditure incurred during the course of business and was an allowable deduction?c)...