Karnataka Court January 2010 Judgments

Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and S.T.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010[18]STR257

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by an assessee under the Finance Act, 1994, directed against the order dated 25-6-2009 [copy at Annexure-G] passed in Appeal No. ST/496/08 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore.2. Under the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed an application for condoning delay of about 229 days in preferring the appeal, an appeal against the order in original passed by the Commissioner in terms of order dated 15-10-2007 [copy at Annexure-D] for getting over levy of tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994.3. The writ petitioner had sought to explain the considerable delay in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal, an appeal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, by urging that the delay was attributable to the fact that the adjudication order of the Commissioner had been served on one Priyaranjan at the branch of the petitioner's establishment at Jamshedpur and had been engaged through one...

B.M. Muniappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KarLJ54,ILR2010KAR3827

ORDER Anand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner was said to be working as the Executive Engineer of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as 'the BBMP' for brevity), earlier known as the Bangalore City Corporation, and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-3-2000. Certain civil works executed by the petitioner were sought to be investigated by the Standing Committee for Accounts of the BBMP. The Committee found certain irregularities in execution of the works and the payments made thereof. A report was sent in this regard to the Commissioner of the Corporation, The petitioner was promptly placed under suspension as on 22-2-1999 and a report was submitted to the Government with a recommendation to refer the matter to the Lokayukta for investigation. While the petitioner was reinstated into services upon directions issued by the Secretary to Go...

Sri Aparajit Basak S/O Late Biswanath Basak Vs. State by High Grounds ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR4531

Manjula Chellur, J.1. These 3 appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.2.2007 in SC 662/2001 on the file of Fast Track Court-I (Sessions), Bangalore.2. The appeal in No. 325/2007 is filed by one Mr. Aparajit Biswanath Basak who was arrayed as accused No. 1, appeal No. 781/2007 is filed by one Ram Rakshaw Jaiswal, who was arrayed as 2nd accused and appeal No. 468/2007 is filed by one Mr. Pankaj Kumar Roy who was arrayed as accused No. 3, in SC No. 662/2001 on the file of the trial Court.3. The learned trial Judge by the Judgment of conviction convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, and 328 read with Section 34 of IPC, apart from convicting them for offences under Sections 392 read with Section 397 of IPC. They were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC and so also in respect of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 1959. The substantive sentence of imprisonmen...

Target Detective and Security Force Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KarLJ161

ORDER Ajit J. Gunjal, J.1. Petitioner is an establishment which started functioning in the year 1986 haying its organisation for providing employees in various services and officers and has been doing the said work which was entrusted to them. A tender was floated by the respondent on 17-11-2008 for providing service of personnel of Data Entry Operators to the District Project Offices for the year 2009-2010 in respect of seven districts. The petitioner was also one of the participant in the tender. The last date for submitting the tender was 25-11-2008. The 4th respondent was also one of the participant. The tender authority has accepted the tender of respondent 4 and a contract is awarded in its favour. The said awarding of contract is questioned in this petition.2. Apparently, petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (for short, the Act') and the same is not availed by the petitioner.3. On merits it...

H.K. Swamy S/O Late Kalaiah, First Division Asst. Vs. State of Karnata ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This revision is against the order of the Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Mysore in Criminal Appeal No. 18/2001 wherein the Fast Track Judge has confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence under Section 408 of IBC alleging misappropriation of Rs. 6,690/-. The accused was sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. The accused has said to be working as First Division Assistant in the office of the Child Development Project Office between 3-6-1995 to 19-3-1996 for nearly nine months. During the said period, that is during September 1995 he has misappropriated Rs. 4,838/- belonging to P.W. 2; Rs. 500/- towards arrears of Dearness Allowance of P.W. 4 for which, he was supposed to purchase NSC and Rs. 800/- towards purchase of revenue stamps and another can of Rs. 552/- which was due to be paid towards su...

S.R.S. Nagar Club Vs. the Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore City Corporat ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KarLJ165

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. There is delay of 103 days in filing this appeal. Misc. W. No. 12244 of 2009 has been filed to condone the delay. 5th respondent has filed objections, opposing the condonation of delay.2. We have heard Sri Ravi Varma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants on the merits of the appeal. We have also heard Sri K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri S. Shekar Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for 5th respondent. Without going into the question of delay, we would dispose of the main appeal.3. Appellant had filed writ petition against respondents 1 to 4 to quash an order dated 22-9-2008 (Annexure-R) passed under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act'). He had also prayed for issuing a direction to the 4th respondent to renew the licence No. 2876 to run the canteen in the club premises of the writ petitioner. 5th respondent got himself impleaded in the writ petiti...

The Commissioner of Income-tax and Vs. Monarch Citadel Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Ravi Malimath, J.1. Being aggrieved by the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, dated 28-2-2005, for the assessment year 2002-03 of ITO, W-12(1),Bangalore an appeal was preferred by the respondent to the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals-III), Bangalore. By an order dated 2-9-2005 the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred an appeal to the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench'B', in ITA No. 1658/BNG/2005 wherein by the order dated 21-4-2006 the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the revenue raising substantial questions.2. We have heard Sri M.V. Sheshachala, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Sri K.P. Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent counsel.3. Sri M.V. Sheshachala, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the shareholders of the assessee Compa...

Sri N. Ramachandrappa Vs. Smt. M. Geetha

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KCCR1069

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. Petitioner is the husband. Respondent is the wife. The marriage was solemnized on 16.5.1991. During the wedlock the respondent-wife gave birth to two children. The relationship between the husband and the wife are strained, inasmuch as, there is lot of acrimony between them. Having regard to the animosity between the husband and wife, the wife initiated proceedings under Section 125 of Code of Civil Procedure against the husband seeking maintenance. She also lodges a criminal complaint under Section 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code as against the husband and his family members. It is their case that several unpleasant instances have taken place wherein both the husband and wife have quarreled and also hurled abuses at each other.The husband also files a petition in M.C. No. 491/2007 seeking dissolution of the marriage. Since the dispute related to matrimonial discord, the matter was referred to the mediation center to explore the possibility of a...

Ramaiah and anr. Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KarLJ162

Manjula Chellur, J.1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit enclosed to the application, Misc. W. No. 3045 of 2009 is allowed by condoning the delay of 54 days in filing the appeals.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 as well as the learned Counsel appearing for respondent 3.3. It is not in dispute that one Mr. Thimma Bovi was granted 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 57 situated at Nagadevanahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, on 10-8-1953. It is also not in dispute that the original grantee sold the above said property on 23-1-1969 under a registered sale deed but violating the conditions of the grant. However, second transaction also took place on 2-12-1980.4. Subsequent to coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, the legal representatives of the original grantee approached the concerned authority by filing a declaratio...

Herambha Leasing Limited, Rep. by Its Managing Director Sri C.S.J. Nar ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. by the complainant on obtaining special leave of this Court is directed against the judgment arid order dated 16.12.2006 passed by the XX ACMM mid XXII ASCJ, Bangalore in C.C. No. 6299/2001 acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.I. Act')2. On the private complainant filed by the appellant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., the respondent was tried for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused pleaded not guilty for the accusation made against him. Ultimately, after the trial, the learned Magistrate by the judgment under appeal acquitted the, respondent/accused, ft is against this judgment, the present appeal is filed.3. Upon service of notice of this appeal, though the respondent/accused appeared through his learned Counsel, to-day learned Counsel for the respondent has remained absent Therefore, I have heard the le...