Karnataka Court January 2010 Judgments

Mohan Kumar Alias Manjunath Vs. State by Sriramapura Police Station

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ718

ORDER A.S. Pachhapure, J.1. The petition is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 requesting for grant of bail having been arrested for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under:Kantharaj alias Kalaiah is aged about 26 years, who is the brother of deceased-Nanjunda submitted a complaint to Srirampura Police Station on 4-6-2009 at about 10.45 p.m. The facts of the complaint reveal that about 9.15 p.m. i.e., on the date of the incident a friend of the complainant by name Srikanth called him on phone and informed that his brother has been assaulted by some persons near Anjaneya Temple, N.P. Block Library and asked him to come to the spot immediately. The complainant went there and found his brother having been dead due to the injuries sustained. On enquiry he came to know that at about 9.00 p.m., the petitioner quarrelled with the deceased and at once removed the knife ...

Sri. A.S. Parameshwaraiah and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR997

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The challenge in the writ petition was to the Notification dated 02.06.2003 issued by the 1st respondent, laying down the guidelines with regard to the disposal of the properties held by the local bodies and also to a communication of the 2nd respondent dated 31.07.2004.2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case as stated by the appellants is as follows:Appellants are the members of a Hindu undivided family. 1st appellant is the kartha. Appellants are the owners of properties bearing Municipal Katha Nos. 3299 & 3300 situated by the side of Hassan-Mysore Road at Holenarasipura. Appellants have established in their said property a petrol bunk in the name and style of; 'A.S. Parameshwaraiah and Brothers'. Towards the eastern end of the petrol bunk, abutting to Hassan--Mysore Road, there is a property belonging to the Town Municipal Council. Appellants sought g...

M.S.R.B. Cashew Industries Vs. Karnataka State Small Scale Industries ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KarLJ89

ORDER Ajit J. Gunjal, J.1. Petitioner and respondent 5 are rival claimants in respect of two industrial sheds. Matter arises in the following manner:Both the petitioner and respondent 5 wanted to establish a Cashew Nut Processing Unit at Kirumanjeshwara, Kundapura Taluk. Both the petitioner as well as respondent 5 made applications for allotment of industrial plots. The matter was placed before the Committee headed by respondent 6. Respondent 6 ultimately found that since there are two claims for the 2 sheds for establishing an identical unit, was of the view, that the said 2 sheds shall be auctioned inter se between the petitioner and the respondent 5. But however, before the said plan could be executed the 1st respondent has allotted the 2 sheds in favour of the respondent 5 and the said allotment is questioned in this writ petition.2. Incidentally, it is noticed that the allotment is of the year 2008 and respondent 5 has already established a unit in the 2 sheds. This Court also did...

Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. P.J. Margo Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010[18]STR146

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The subject matter of the appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by the Commissioner of Service tax, Service Tax Commissionerate, Bangalore, is as to whether the tax liability under the provisions of Finance Act, 2005, in respect of the activity of the respondent-assessee namely, activity of enhancing the acidic value of humic acid supplied to the assessee by its sister concern on job work, by collecting the process charges, for the period from 10-9-2004 to 28-2-2005 was liable to tax in terms of the provisions of Section 11A of the Act, on the premise that there was suppression of facts on the part of the assessee.2. On perusal of the order passed by the adjudicating authority we find that there is not even a finding about the suppression of facts on the part of assessee, which could have enabled the adjudicating authority to invoke the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. The appellate commissioner has rightly noticed this aspect ...

Chandrashekar Hebbar Vs. Sheenappa Shetty and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KarLJ78

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. The appeal has been admitted on the following questions of law, namely:Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit on the ground the suit is barred by limitation?Whether the Appellate Court was justified in denying the relief on the ground that the suit is bared by limitation, having held, the debt is wiped out under the provisions of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980 and the plaintiff is entitled for redemption of the mortgaged property?2. To answer these and either questions of law that arise for consideration, it is in order to state the facts of the case.The appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court and had filed a suit for redemption of a usufructory mortgage executed by his father in favour of the respondent, who was the defendant, on 30-10-1953 in respect of suit schedule 'A' property. The mortgage amount was Rs. 1,200/-. It was agreed that the debt was to be discharged at the end of any...

Dr. Geetha D/O. K. Krishna Murthy Vs. (Sic) Vasanthi S. Shetty W/O. T. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3669

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.1. This appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. by the complainant is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.01.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Mysore, in Crl.A. 211/2005 acquitting the respondent/accused by setting aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.). JMFC. Nanjangud, in C.C. No. 371/2003 convicting the respondent/accused for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The appellant filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the respondent for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act infer alia alleging that, the respondent/accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 2.50.000/- from her on 14.08.2000 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% p.a. However, subsequently, the accused failed to pay the amount in spite of repeated demands by her and ultimately, the accused issued a cheque dated, 30.07.20...

M.K. Sateesha Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KarLJ43

H. Billappa, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award, dated 29-3-2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, in MVC No. 5159 of 2001.2. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 51,750/- with interest of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment.3. Aggrieved by that, the appellant has filed this appeal, seeking enhancement.4. In brief the facts are: That on 7-11-2000, at about 8.00 p.m. when the appellant was proceeding on his scooter, on 6th Main Road, A Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, the rider of the motorcycle bearing No. KA-02-EA-9261 came at high speed and dashed against the appellant. As a result of that, the appellant sustained injuries. The appellant claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 51,750/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. Aggrieved by that, the appellant has filed this appeal, seeking enhanceme...

Doddaveeregowda Vs. Basavaraju

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KarLJ175

ORDER K. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioner-defendant in O.S. No. 455 of 2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ramanagar, is before this Court praying to quash order dated 15-12-2009 passed on LA. No. 5 filed at Annexure-J.2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition may be stated as under:Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Ex. P. 1 Palupatti was marked for collateral purpose and since the signatures at Ex. P. 1(c) and (d) of the present petitioner was denied the respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Order 26, Rule 10-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to refer the disputed signatures along with admitted signatures for comparison and report and the Trial Court erred in allowing the application.3. The respondent has filed suit against present petitioner for declaration that the suit schedule property is allotted to his share in the oral partition in the month of November, 1992 and since then he has...

Smt. Lakshmi Janardhan W/O. C.R. Janardhan and Vs. Smt. N.S. Vinutha W ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR489

ORDERA.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. This motion by the complainant against the accused is for taking action for criminal contempt of the proceedings of this Court and also a subordinate Court.2. Material allegations made in the motion are that, accused along with his wife instituted against the 2nd complainant, O.S. 2377/1993 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore which suit was dismissed in respect of a portion of the suit property by a decree dated 11.12.2003. Accused along with his wife filed RFA 146/2004, which was dismissed as not pressed, by an order dated 20.04.2006. During the pendency of said appeal, accused filed O.S. 4196/2005 on 4.6.2005 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore, in respect of the same suit property, as in O.S. 2377/93, against the 1st complainant. In the said suit, an I.A. under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed and an exparte order of temporary injunction was obtained on 08.06.05, by concealing the fact about the judgment and decree dated 11....

Bharati Airtel Limited Represented by Its General Power of Attorney Ho ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAnand Byraeddy, J.1. Both these petitions are heard and disposed of together, since they raise identical issues and are filed under similar circumstances.2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. 1956 and is a licensee under the Indian Telegraphs Act. The petitioner is authorised to operate Cellular Mobile Telephone Services within the Stale of Karnataka and the Karnataka Telecom Circle.The petitioner provides various types of telephone services including a GSM Mobile Phone Service, which is activated by the use of a Subscriber Identification Module Card popularly known as a SIM Card. which is an electronic chip. The petitioner also provides GSM Fixed Wireless Phone Services (hereinafter refined to as the FWP for brevity). The SIM Card and the FWP are enabling devices supplied by the petitioner to its subscribers, so as to enable the subscriber to access the services provided.It is the petitioner's case that neither of these devices are supplied at a cos...