Karnataka Court August 2009 Judgments

G. Raja and ors. Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ713

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The orders at Annexures-A and B, dated 8th July, 2009 are called in question in these writ petitions. By filing two applications, defendants 5 to 7 i.e., the petitioners herein prayed for recalling the orders dated 22-10-2008 and 11-11-2008.2. The original application is filed in the year 1998 by respondent 1-Bank for recovery of certain amounts of money from the petitioners and others. Matter is still pending since then till this day. After about 10 years of the trial, the petitioners herein had filed applications praying for permission to cross-examine the witnesses for the applicants. Said applications praying for cross-examination are dismissed. However, the petitioners continued to file applications after applications. Ultimately, the order dated 22-10-2008 is passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-Karnataka, Bangalore, refusing permission to cross-examine the witnesses of the applicants. Subsequently, one more application is filed to recall the orde...

Sri Shekar Bhojanna S/O Bhojanna P.A. Holder, Yamaha Motors India (P) ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAravind Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.01.2009 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA No. 249/2007.2. The petitioner is a private limited company-engaged in the business and distribution of Yamaha Motor Cycles and is transporting the vehicles from Faridabad to Bangalore, The vehicles are said to have been delivered to the dealers. The freight charges were not included in the invoice raised by the local dealers. The authorities during the course of the audit noticed that thea assessee had charged and collected VAT charges @ 12.5% separately in the tax invoice on the basic value of the goods and that the same was not in accordance with Rule 3(2) of the KVAT Rules 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules'). On issue of notice by the authorities, the assessee has filed a reply on 31.03.2006 and it is admitted therein to the following effect by the aasessee3. We are selling out motorcycle to dealers and we are showing freight amount separately...

Smt. Shamavathi, Hindu W/O Vishwanath Rai, Vs. Smt. Appi S. Pergade W/ ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order, dated 18.6.2009 passed by the III Addl. District Judge, D.K., Mangalore in M.A. No. 9/2008 and the order, dated 14.9.2007 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mangalore on I.A. Nos. 6 and 7 in O.S. No. 40/1996.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners filed the suit for partition, separate possession, etc. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No. 1, Shantharama Pergade died on 10.5.2000. The petitioners filed two I.As. - I.A. No. 6 for substituting the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 1 and I.A. No. 7 for setting aside the abatement. The said I.A.s were rejected by the Trial Court, by its common order, dated 14.9.2007.3. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred M.A. No. 9/2008. The learned Appellate Judge dismissed the said appeal by confirming the orders of the Trial Court. On suffering the concurrent orders, this petition is presented.4. Sri S...

The Karnataka Handloom Devlpt. Corpn. Ltd. Rep. by Its Chief Manager ( ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3838

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the XXX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, dated 13.2.2001 in O.S. No. 7367/90. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their status before the court: below.2. The appellant-plaintiff is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act and it is fully owned by the State of Karnataka. According to the plaint averments, agency was granted to one B.C. Nagaraju of Maiavalli in Mandya District, for the promotion and sale of handloom goods manufactured by the appellant-company under the agreement dated 3.4.1986. In terms of the agreement, the Nagaraj was required to furnish the batik guarantee for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Accordingly, the respondent-Mandya District Co-operative Bank has furnished the bank guarantee on behalf of Nagaraj on 25.10.1986 and the bank guarantee remained in force till 30.9.1987. Since Nagaraju did not mainta...

Mubeen Pasha Vs. the Managing Director, Bangalore Electricity Supply C ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ396

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioner is questioning the awarding of additional work in favour of the third respondent pursuant to Annexures-F1 to F16 and also for a writ of mandamus to the concerned respondents to redo the entire process as provided under Sections 5 and 12 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999.2. The matter arises in the following manner:The petitioner claims to be a licensed electrical contractor having necessary and sufficient experience in the field of execution of work of greater magnitude in the nature of supplying of transformers, cables etc. Suffice it to say that the respondents 1 and 2 invited tenders for maintenance works at Kolar, Tiptur and Chikkaballapur Divisions for the period between 2007 to 2009 i.e., for a period of 2 years ending on 1-2-2009. The case of the petitioner is that after the expiry of the term of two years on 2-2-2009, the respondents ought to have called for fresh tender before awarding certain work in favour...

Syed Arifulla Habib S/O Late Dr. Syed Habeebullah Rep. by His Gpa, MoI ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009(4)Kar3918

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, having purchased the schedule immoveable property from his vendor in title by name N. Geetha, who, on securing a sanction of building plan and licence to erect a residential building, nevertheless, constructed a building for commercial use, has presented this petition for a writ of mandamus, to restrain the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, for short BBMP, from demolishing the said property.2. The construction of the commercial building on a residential plot of land without change of land use, from residential to commercial, under The Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, for short KTCP Act, and contrary to sanction of building plan and licence exfacie, was illegal, let alone the use of the said building for commercial activity. The complaint of the petitioner's neighbour over the illegalities, when not responded, led to filing W.P. 19029-30/01, whence, a learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 19.6.01, Annexure B, dispose...

The State of Karnataka by Nanjangud Rural Police Station Vs. Lingappa ...

Court: Karnataka

Arali Nagaraj, J.1. Despite receipt of notice of this appeal, the respondents No. 1 to 4, who were respectively accused Nos. 1 to 4 before the Trial Court, have remained absent.2. Heard Sri A.V. Ramakrishna, the learned High Court Government Pleader, and perused the impugned order.3. This appeal is by the complainant-State aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2008 passed in CC No. 780/2007 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Nanjangud (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short), acquitting all the accused Nos. 1 to 4 (respondents herein) of the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324 readwith Section 34 IPC.4. The facts leading to the present appeal are as under:All the accused Nos. 1 to 4 were chargesheeted by the police of Nanjangud PS for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The charge was framed against all the accused therein for the said offences on 24.6.2008. The said case stood posted to 15.1.2009 for recording further evidenc...

The Medi Assist India Tpa P. Ltd. Rep. by Its Chief Executive Officer ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Kar)392

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioner is in all these writ petitions is questioning the order passed by the first respondent under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for the respective assessment years. The petitioner is also questioning the show cause notice issued on 19.1.2009, pursuant to which Annexure-H has been passed.2. The facts in a nut-shell are as follows:The petitioner is a Third Party Administrator licensed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority under the Third Party Administrator Health Services Regulations, 2001 (for short 'TPA Regulations'). The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing health insurance claim services under various Health Insurance Policies issued by several Insurers. The services include providing cashless service through Network Hospitals and settlement or reimbursement of claims in accordance with the terms of the Health Insurance Policies. The petitioner also provides for 24x7 Cal...

M.C. Suresh S/O Late B.M. Chamana Vs. Sri B. Srinivas Naik S/O Sri Ait ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3897

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 8524/2001 dated 11.7.2007 on the file of the 30th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The appellant was the first defendant, first respondent was the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 were the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the in the said suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranking before the trial Court.2. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 86,050/- together with court costs, interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the suit till its realisation. In the said suit, the plaintiff contends that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 approached him and requested for a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- for construction of their house. Considering their plea, the plaintiff gave a loan of Rs. 50,000/- on 16.11.1998, out of his retiral benefits. In this connection, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have jointly executed an on demand promissor...

Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka, Represented by K.R. Puram Police State

Court: Karnataka

Arali Nagaraj, J.1. The appellant herein who was accused No. l in SC No. 392/2005 on the file of the Fast Track (Sessions) Judge V, Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short) has challenged in this appeal the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 26.2.2007 passed in the said case convicting him for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'DP Act' for short).2. Totally five accused were charge sheeted in the said Sessions Case for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. The appellant is accused No. 1 therein and accused Nos. 2 to 5 are his relatives. After the charge was framed against all the five accused, as it appears from the records, the accused No. 5 Madaiah absconded and therefore, the case against him came to be split up and only accused Nos. 1 to 4 were tried by the Trial Court for the said offences. On a...