Karnataka Court January 2010 Judgments

Dirak Dieter Ramsauer Vs. S.D. Chakravarthy

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2010]99SCL208(Kar)

1. This appeal purporting to be under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') is directed against the order dated 19-8-2009 passed on Company Application No. 35/2009 filed on Company Petition No. CP/34/397/CB/2009 pending before the Chennai Bench of Company Law Board, Chennai.2. There is a delay of 31 days in preferring this appeal. The Misc. Civil Application No. 21244/2009, accompanied by the affidavit, is filed by the appellant, praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Notice had been issued to the respondents who are represented by their counsel for M/s. J. Sagar Associates and Sri Vijay Desai, learned advocate appears for the first respondent.3. Though, Sri S.S. Naganand, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, points out that the notices issued to the respondents are not yet responded, we find that not of much significance.4. As no serious opposition is aired against the application filed for condonation of delay, the Misc. Civil Application...

Commr. of S.T. Vs. Atria Convergence Tech. P. Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010[18]STR265

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The appeal by the Revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [for short 'the Act'] is directed against the order of the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, [for short 'CESTAT'] dated 11-5-2009 where under the Tribunal rejected the appeal of the Commissioner of Central Excise [Appeals-I], Bangalore, preferred under Section 35B of the Act in turn directed against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise [Appeals] dated 31-3-2006 where under the Commissioner had set aside certain penalties that had been levied on the assessee by the adjudicating authority under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, on the premise that there was suppression and non-payment of duty on the part of the assessee in not paying commensurate Service tax for the period from 1-4-2002 to 31-3-2004.2. The genesis of the above orders are that a show cause notice dated 31-12-2004 [copy at Annexure-B] had been issued to the assessee...

Sri Munireddy and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KCCR1059

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. In this writ appeal, the writ petitioners have contended that the alienation of the disputed land in favour of the vendors of their father by the original grantee, who was a member of Scheduled Caste, cannot be voided under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, the Act). The transactions were declared as null and void by the jurisdictional authority and the land was ordered to be restored to the legal representative of the original grantee. Appellants challenged the action of jurisdictional authority unsuccessfully in appeal and also in writ petition.2. Material facts which have led to this appeal could be stated as under:Sollapura Bhovi and Ramana Bhovi were granted 2 acres of land each by the Government on 22.09.1939 in Sy. No. 39 Block Nos. 6 and 7 of Manchanahalli Village of Anekal Taluk. The grantees transferred the properties to one Venkatappa under registe...

State of Karnataka by Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. Sri. H. Rang ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KCCR484

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This revision is by the State against the order dated 1.10.05 passed by the Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore in Spl. Case No. 67/04.2. The respondent-accused was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) readwith Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that he being the Junior Engineer (Electrical) in North sub-Division, BESCOM, Bangalore, has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income which works out to 146% excess wealth than the known sources of income and accordingly, after obtaining sanction from the Superintending Engineer (Electrical), charge-sheet was laid. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and summons was issued by the learned Special Judge and on the preliminary objection raised by the accused regarding the competency of the sanctioning authority, it was tried as a preliminary issue and after enquiry, having found that the person who accorded the sanction is not...

D.S. Chakrapani S/O. Sri. D. Subbappa Gowda Vs. the Secretary, Revenue ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KCCR976

ORDER(i) The order dated 4.8.2009 passed in W.P. 3898/2008 dismissing the writ petition by the learned Single Judge, is hereby set aside.(ii) W.P. 3898/2008 is allowed in part. Declaration under Section 6 vide Annexure-F insofar as the property of appellant is concerned, shall stand quashed.(iii) 2nd respondent shall conduct an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, by granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to appellant. In order to expediate the process, the appellant is hereby directed to appear before the Commissioner on 15.2.2010 at 3 p.m. and receive further orders, The Commissioner shall complete the hearing on objection of the appellant, as expeditiously as possible and submit his report to the Government on or before 15.3.2010.(iv) All other contentions are kept open for consideration.Writ appeal stands allowed accordingly....

Sri Benaka Souharda Credit Co-operative Society Limited Vs. the Assist ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KCCR995

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition with costs. In the writ petition, the appellant had prayed for issuing a direction to the 1st respondent and compel him to recover the loan amount by attaching the salary of 2nd respondent, as per the attachment warrant issued by a Recovery Officer.2. Briefly stated, the facts which have led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:The Appellant is a Co-operative society, registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act'). It had advanced loan to one Smt. Geetha. The 2nd respondent was one of the sureties to the said loan. To realise the loan amount, appellant filed a petition under Section 70 of the Act against the loanee and the sureties. An award was passed under Section 71, which was put into execution by filing a recovery petition under Section 101 of the Act, wherein, the executing authority issued a warran...

G. Nagendrappa Vs. the Director, Administration and Human Resources, K ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KCCR987

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner while in the services of the respondent as an Assistant Engineer was accused of offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, in CC No. 3/1997 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Shimoga, leading to the respondent-employer placing the petitioner under suspension from 16.8.1996 up to 7.4.1997 and on attaining the age of superannuation retired on 31.3.2001. On retirement, the petitioner was paid 75% (2/3rd) of the full pension while denying the terminal benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity, earned leave and commutation.2. According to the petitioner. CC No. 3/1997 ended in an acquittal by order dated 30.5.2002 as against which the Lokayuktha police preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2125/2002 which was dismissed by order dated 4.12.2008. On the culmination of the judicial proceedings, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 21.4.2009 calling upon the respondents to make payment ...

Hameed Sarfan and anr. Vs. State by Mangalore South Police Station

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KarLJ84

ORDER A.S. Pachhapure, J.1. The petitioners in Cri. P. Nos. 6397 and 6398 of 2009 have sought for bail having been arrested for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 whereas the petitioner in Cri. P. No. 107 of 2010 has sought for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest for the aforesaid offences.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of these petitions are as under:One Prabhakar Shetty, a resident of Jappu Garodi House at Mangalore submitted a complaint to the Police on 29-5-2009 narrating the facts of the incident. He is a Businessman and owns a hotel at Mangalore. His brother-in-law Chetan Shetty was running a General Stores in the City. On 28-5-2009 in the night at about 9.00 p.m. when the complainant was in the Hotel, two persons came and informed that his brother-in-law Chetan Shetty is found in unconscious condition in his shop and some persons have caused injuries. Immediately, the complainant went to the shop of the ...

Sri TajuddIn Khan Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KCCR617

N.K. Patil, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.09.2005 passed in MVC No. 6321/2003 on the file of IX Additional Judge, Member MACT-7, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, (SCCH-7) (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for brevity) on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization as against the claim of claimant for Rs. 10,00,000/- is inadequate.2. The brief facts of the case are:The appellant claims to be aged about 37 years, working as driver of a lorry and getting salary of Rs. 4,500/- p.m. Be that as it may, that on 08.11.2003 at about 9.00 a.m. when the appellant was driving his lorry bearing registration No. KA. 04 7517 on Tumkur Madhugiri Road, towards Madhugiri near PBE Bricks Factory, Arakere, another lorry bearing registration No. AP 16 TU 1465 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his lorry as a result of which he ...

H C Kantharaj, S/O Chennegowda, and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka, R ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This petition is disposed of finally after hearing learned senior counsel Sri. A.K. Subbiah for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra Reddy for the respondent Lokayuktha and also learned for respondent No1. 2. The petitioners seek quashing of the FIR registered in F.I.R.2/09 of Lokayuktha police station, Madikeri for the offences under sections 7. 13( I)(c), 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 420, 468. 471 r/w 120-B of the IPC.3. The facts necessary for the purpose of this order in brief are that, a complaint was lodged by one Vazeer Ali Khan, Police Inspector who had camped at Thithimathi where the auction of Government and private timber was held on 8.10.2009 from 10.00 air. onwards. In the complaint that was lodged by the aforesaid Inspector of Police to the Lokayuktha police, it was stated that the entire auction process was not properly conducted and many of the lots were not. called for auction and were skipped and some of the skipped logs were reserved for Sr...