Karnataka Court January 2010 Judgments

Sanjay Patak @ Bhuttu S/O Barbi Patak, Vs. the State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This appeal is against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court, Chamarajanagar in S.C. No. 414/2004 (old No. S.C.59/2003).2. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos. 1 to 6 were appointed as Security Guards in M/s, Lion Security Services and the Head Office is situated at Chamarajpet, Bangalore, The accused were directed to work in the office of the KPTCL at Gundlupet. One Kumaraswamy was working as Field Officer in M/s. Lion Security Services in its branch at Chamarajanagar. During the month of September 2002 the accused 1, 2, 4 and 6 were directed to work in KPTCL office at Gundlupet.3. According to the accused, alleging nonpayment of arrears of salary, they snatched the amount from P.W. 1 and assaulted him. The accused have been falsely implicated on this ground.4. However, according to the prosecution, P.W. 2-Sureshbabu wording as Manager of the Brach Office at Mysore had given Rs. 40,000/- to P.W. 1 for the purpose of di...

J. Hemachandra and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KCCR582

ORDERL. Narayana Swamy, J.1. Ms Anjana Sundar, learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4, made submissions that the matter, which is heard in part, may be released and she further submits the said submission has been made on the basis of a letter addressed by her clients - respondents 3 and 4 - to her and marking copy of it to brother Judge Justice D V Shylendra Kumar and also to the Hon'ble Chief Justice.2. I have also gone through the letter dated 11-11-2009 produced along with the report submitted by the Registrar (Vigilance), wherein in para-3, a remark has been made against a former judge, which makes me to recuse from this matter. Accordingly, place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders. D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Ms Anjana Sundar, learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4, made a submission that the matter may be released from part heard. While I was personally inclined to accede to the request, as my learned bro...

In Re: Loop Mobile Holdings India Ltd. Vs.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2010]100SCL37(Kar)

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, a company originally incorporated on 31-12-1993 in the State of Karnataka under the name Tangelo Securities Private Limited, changed its name to BPL Cellular Holdings Limited, by a fresh certificate of incorporation dated 1-6-1995 and yet again to BPL Communications Limited on 14-7-2000 and thereafter to the present name i.e. Loop Mobile Holdings India Limited, on 21-5-2009, by securing the fresh certificate of incorporation. The address of the registered office of the petitioner-company (for short 'Transferee Company'), is as shown in the cause-title.2. The Transferee-Company is engaged in the promotion of cellular mobile telephony ventures, amongst other objects as set out in the memorandum and articles of association Annexure 'A'.3. The authorised share capital as on 31-3-2008 is Rs. 23,20,00,00,000 comprising 2,32,00,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each and Rs. 1,80,00,00,000 constituting 1,80,00,000 Redeemable preference shares of Rs. 100 ...

Sidda @ Siddanayaka S/O Annanayaka Vs. the State of Karnataka, Represe ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This revision is by the accused-petitioner assailing the order passed by both the Courts below in convicting and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and in default to pay the fine, to undergo imprisonment for one month.2. As per the prosecution case, on the intermittent night of 19/20.1.1993 the petitioner along with one more accused having gained entry into the Kannika Parameshwari temple by breaking open the lock, committed theft of gold and silver articles and also silver idol worth Rs. 30,000/-. Later during investigation, the accused were arrested and at their instance, police have recovered the golden ingots from the receiver of the stolen properly. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and one more accused person for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.3. Earlier on the strength of the compla...

State of Karnataka by K.P.T.C.L. (Vigilance) Vs. Shivappa S/O Patel Th ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3885

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.1. This appeal by the State of Karnataka, represented by K.P.T.C.L. (Vigilance). Mysore, is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.7.2007 passed by the Special Court. Mandya, in Spl. Case (Elec) No. 99/2002. acquitting the respondent-accused of the offences punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short 'the Act').2. P.W.4 H.S. Babu, working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Vigilance Squad of the K.P.T.C.L. Mysore, along with his colleagues P.Ws.1 to 3, visited the electrical installation bearing R.R. No. HONP-13 installed in Hongahalli Mut. Keragodu Hobli, Mandya Taluk, standing in the name of the respondent-accused, on 3.1.2001 and found that the electric meter pertaining to the installation had been tampered in such a way that the entire electricity that was being consumed by the installation was not being recorded. Immediately, he lodged a complaint before P.W.8 S. Honnachar. Head Constable working in the V...

M.B. Ramesh S/O Sri C. Basavaraj Urs Vs. the Income Tax Officer

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2010]320ITR451(KAR); [2010]320ITR451(Karn)

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The appellant is an individual assessee and in respect of return of income for the assessment year 1997-98 had claimed certain exemptions under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act'] on the premise that the profits earned out of sale of the residential property has been reinvested in a like property and therefore sought to reduce the taxable income to the extent of exemption permitted in terms of Section 54 of the Act.2. While the assessing authority refused exemption under Section 54 of the Act on a factual verification of the place where the assessee claimed to have had the residential property as the assessing authority found only a mud structure not worthy of caption 'residential house', the aggrieved assessee appealed to the first appellate authority.3. The first appellate authority took the view that the property in question had already been demolished and accepted the claim of the assessee that the assessee had in turn sold the pr...

Sanjeeva Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ353

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The present writ petition coming on for hearing, it is seen that an identical issue having arisen in W.P. No. 17274 of 2007, this Court having taken note of the position of the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 having been upheld by a learned Single Judge and a Division Bench of this Court having set aside the said judgment and having struck down the entire enactment and the same having been carried by way of an appeal to the Apex Court and an interim order of stay granted therein.2. Further, on an application filed by the Archaks concerned, complaining that they are likely to be relieved from their services on attaining the age of superannuation, whereas they were entitled to continue in office during their lifetime, the Apex Court has passed an order to maintain status quo. Under these circumstances, ultimately, the Apex Court has to decide the validity of the Act and the Rules framed u...

T.S. Puradappa and ors. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ354

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. State common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision-making, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this order.2. Petitioners serve the respondent-Karnataka Housing Board as Assistant Revenue Officers entrusted with the performance of the duties of a Competent Authority pursuant to the notification dated 20-8-1992 Annexure-A of the State Government. The term 'Competent Authority' defined under Section 2(f) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 (for short, 'Act') means, any person authorised by the State Government by notification to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under Chapter VI, in such area as may be specified by the notification. Chapter VI of the Act provides for power to evict persons from Board premises. Petitioners, aggrieved by the notification dated 1-12-2009 Annexure-E of the Housing Board and the notification dated 10-12...

The Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Officer Vs. Sri Asla ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Kar)295,[2010]321ITR150(KAR),[2010]321ITR150(Karn)

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.RE: ITA No. 451 OF 2004:1. Appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short the Act]. The assessee is an individual and the assessment year is 1991-92. The assessment in question is one alter reopening by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act and concluded in terms of Section 147 of the Act.2. The income determined is at Rs. 1.30 lakh, which is the same amount as had been declared by the assessee under the voluntary disclosure of income scheme, 1997, disclosing this amount as undisclosed income for the assessment year in question.3. However, the income tax authorities had declined to accept the declaration under the scheme for the reason that the assessee while declared this income for the assessment year as on 31-12-1997 had not paid the tax payable as per the declaration either on that date or within three months there from i.e. by or before 30-3-1998, but had in fact paid the tax due on the declaration only on 31-3-1998.4...

State of Karnataka Vs. A. Madappa and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ697

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This appeal is by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in Spl. C.C. No. 130 of 2004 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against respondents 1 and 2, who are accused 1 and 2 namely, the husband and wife.2. The house of the respondents is said to be standing in the name of respondent 2-the wife. On inspection by the Vigilance Squad on 19-8-2002 it is found that accused 1 has drawn electricity directly from the bus bar (prior to the meter board) by using the converter and managed not to record the meter and committed theft of electricity worth Rs. 2,26,192/-. Accordingly, charges were framed against the accused and since they pleaded not guilty the prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses and got marked six exhibits and M.Os. 1 to 3 namely the meter, bus bar and the starter...