Karnataka Court August 2009 Judgments

Raja General Agency Rep. by Its Partner/Manager, Shri R.S. Punekar and ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioners in these petitions have sought for quashing the order called 'The Edible Oils Packaging (Regulation) Order, 1998, which was published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary dated , 17th September 1998 vide Notification dated 17th August 1998 and also as amended by GSR 710(E) dated 30th November 1998 and GSR 37(E) dated 4th February 2000 vide Annexure A issued by the first respondent Further, they have sought for quashing the intimation dated 15th June 2007, dated 15th June 2007, 30th July 2007 and 5th October 2007 respectively issued by the respondents 3 to 6 vide Annexures D to D4 They have also sought for a direction, direct the second respondent to issue Notification exempting the edible oils from the provisions of the 'Edible Oils Packaging (Regulation) Order, 1998, as provided under Clause 3 of the Order, 1998.2. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 2 to 6.3. Lea...

Management of Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. by Its Dy. General M ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. The management has sought for quashing the award passed by the II Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore on 29.12.2005 in Ref. 64/1997.2. As it transpires, the respondent was working as a Packer in the Packing Department with effect from June 1989 without any break in service. He had passed his SSLC and was aged about 28 years. However, during December 1992, a false complaint has been lodged against him accusing of removing Rs. 108/- worth copies of Indian Express and Kannada Prabha Supplementaries through the window of the Premises andleter after (sic) was removed from service. Later, in the criminal case he was acquitted. Thereafter, after acquittal on 30.11.1995, he approached the management seeking to take him back on duty. The management refused employment. According to the workman, at the time of joining in June 1989 as a Packer, he was paid Rs. 16/- per day and later, it was enhanced to Rs. 25/- per day. He was discharging the duties assigned to him with utm...

P. Munirathnam S/O. Papaiah Vs. Asmath W/O Sabjansab and the New India ...

Court: Karnataka

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Petitioners in MVC No. 5526 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-10), Bangalore City, is the appellant in MFA 8165/2006. Respondent-2 in the said claim petition is the appellant in MFA 7330/2006. In both these appeals, the judgment and award dated 15.2.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,99,022/- with interest at 6% p.a., has been questioned. Grievance of the appellant In MFA 8165/2006 is that, the amount awarded is not just compensation and that, he is entitled to be awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- as claimed in the claim petition. On the other hand, the grievance of the Insurance Company in MFA 7330/2006 is against the very awarding of compensation of Rs. 1,99,022/- in favour of the petitioner. Since the appeals arise from one and the same judgment and award, they are taken up together for consideration.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would herein after be referred to, with refer...

Wipro Limited Infotech Group Rep. by Its Regional Finance Manager Sri ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.Re: STRP No. is of 20091. The revision petitioner is a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 [for short. KST Act], has filed the petition under Section 23(1) of the KST Act.2. The petitioner in its return indicated certain amount that had been collected by way of tax in respect, of merchandise sold by the petitioner-dealer at a particular rate and also remitted the amount of tax as indicated in the return. It was subsequently noticed that for the relevant period, the particular product sold by the petitioner-dealer was exempt from levy of tax, except for one or two months of the entire period, and in respect of rest of the period it was at nil rate, whereas the tax, it appeals, had been indicated to have been collected at 4% and on such premise, remitted the tax component along with the returns.3. The authorities on noticing this position, caused a notice under Section 18AA KST Act read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax A...

Devendra S/O. Thippe Swamy Vs. the Divisional Manager, Bangalore Metro ...

Court: Karnataka

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. This is a claimant's appeal. Claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 claiming compensation from the respondent at Rs. 8,00,000/-, on account of injuries sustained In the road traffic accident on 28.8.2004 on account of wrongful action on the part of driver of the bus bearing Registration No. KA-01 F-2671, has been allowed in part, directing the respondent to pay to the claimant, compensation of Rs. 1,98,250/- with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Respondent has accepted the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.2. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded and to award just compensation, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant.3. As this is a claimant's appeal for enhancement, the finding regarding actionable negligence does not require consideration.4. The only point, therefore, that arises for consideration is:Whether the compensation awarded is Inadequate and whether it requ...

Vatal Nagaraj, Ex Member of Legislative Assembly, Chamarajanagar Const ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KCCR3113(D.B).

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The above public interest litigation has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:(i) for a declaration that the ongoing acts of respondent No. 7 in erecting & unveiling Thiruvallvur Statue near Ulsoor lake, Bangalore without permission/sanction from the Planning Authorities under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 is illegal and cannot be permitted to be carried out; and(ii) for a direction to respondents-1 to 4 to forthwith take suitable actions under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 against the 7th respondent by preventing it from erecting & unveiling the Thiruvallavur Statue near Ulsoor lake, Bangalore.2. Even though the petitioners, in the affidavit filed in support of the above PIL, have referred to some of the issues such as Cauvery water issue, Hoganekal falls and Classical status to Kannada language issues as the basis for objecting the erecting and unveiling of Statue of Great Divine Poet Thiruvallavur near Ulsoor lak...

Sri. H. Ananda Gowda S/O of Late Hanumanthappa, Bmtc Bus Driver Vs. Sm ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner in this petition has sought for quashing the order passed in C.Misc. No. 384/2007, on 22nd January 2009, on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, at Bangalore vide Annexure A on the ground that, the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is excessive and needs to be modified.2. Facts in brief are that, the first respondent is the wife of petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are their son and daughter. The respondents herein had filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance. The said application had come up for consideration before the learned Judge, Family Court on 22nd January 2009. The application filed by the respondents was allowed and maintenance was awarded at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month in respect of first respondent and a sum of Rs. 1,500/- each in respect of respondents 2 and 3 from the date of petition and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses.3. Being aggrieved by the or...

Smt. Siddibai W/O Naganayak and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. The learned Government Advocate to take notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 8 and file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.2. The petitioners are seeking for issue of mandamus to direct respondent Nos. 7 and 8 to consider the petitioners applications produced vide Annexures 'A' to 'A50' for their respective portions of the land in Sy. No. l8 of N. Ganadagatte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District3. The case of the petitioners is that they are in cultivation of different extents of land in the said survey number and in respect of the such cultivation, they have sought for regularisation by filing Form No. 50 in respect of each of the petitioners, copy of Form No. 50 is produced at Annexures 'A' to 'A50'.4. The case of the petitioners is that though it was indicated that the matter would be considered by placing it before the Committee, the same has not been considered and disposed of till now. The petitioners also place ...

S. Thigarajan S/O M.S. Subramanian Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of Incom ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Kar)47; [2009]185TAXMAN20(Kar)

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. Since common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision making, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners when granted certain number of stock at Re. 1 per stock, subject to certain conditions under the employees stock option scheme, by the employer M/s. Infosys, did not amount to a taxable perquisite and the value of the shares were not disclosed as taxable income in the original returns of income filed under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for short 'Act', as follows:(i) S Thigarajan - Assessment year 1999-2000(ii) U Ramadas Kamath - Assessment year 1999-2000 & 1999-2000(iii) Suresh Kamath K - Assessment Year 1998-1999 & 1999-20003. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) by order dated 7.10.1999 held that the shares being perquisites, their value required to be disclosed and failure of the employer M/s. Infosys to deduct Tax ...

Agricultural Produce Market Committee Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. Shivas ...

Court: Karnataka

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri B.G. Sridharan, appearing for appellant.2. The legality and correctness of the order passed In W.P. No. 417365/2008 dated 29-01-2009 is called In question in this appeal.3. The first respondent aggrieved by the order passed by the appellant dated 19-12-2006, which is produced as Annexure-J to writ petition, filed writ petition on the ground that the order is passed without diving an opportunity to him and he has been prevented from carrying on business on the ground that he did not make payment to the seller of the potatos within five days as required under Section 75 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produces Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1966 (in short the Act').4. It appears that on the complaint lodged by M/s Himamshu Traders, Shajapur, Madhya Pradesh, a show cause notice was issued to first respondent on the ground that in accordance with Section 75 of the Act no payment has been made to said M/s Himamshu Traders, from whom the ...