Karnataka Court February 2010 Judgments

Bangalore International Airport Limited Vs. Karnataka Information Comm ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3214

ORDER1. The petitioner is questioning the order passed by the first respondent on 18 August 2008. copy of which is produced at Annexure-E and is seeking a further declaration that the petitioner is not a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act (for short, 'the RTI Act").2. The facts leading to initiation of these proceedings can be summarized as follows:The petitioner i.e.. Bangalore International Airport Limited (for short. 'BIAL') is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. The specific case of the petitioner is that it is not a Government company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act. 1956. A Shareholders Agreement (SHA) dated 23.01.2002 was entered into between the Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited (KSIIDC), Airport Authority of India (AAI). Siemens Project Ventures GmbH, Flughafen Zuerich AG, Larsen and Toubro Limited and Bangalore International Airport Limited ('BIA...

Antrix Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2010)29VST308(Karn)

B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. These writ appeals are filed against the order of the learned single judge dated March 6, 2009 (Sap India Private Limited v. State of Karnataka [2009] 23 VST 276 (Kar)) passed in W. P. Nos. 2647 to 2650 of 2009 by which the writ petitions filed by the appellants are dismissed. By an interim order dated March 30, 2009 stay as sought in Misc. W. 3042 of 2009 in these appeals was granted till the next date of hearing and extended subsequently and on April 24, 2009 an interim order of stay was granted subject to deposit of 25 per cent of the demand made by the respondent-authority. The stay order was challenged before the apex court and the same was stayed and further direction was given that the main matter in the appeals be disposed of by this Court. Hence, we have heard these writ appeals for final disposal.2. The demand made by the respondent-authority under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('the KVAT Act', for short) pursuant to assessment orders passed ag...

Prashantha Shetty S/O. Sadashiva Shetty Vs. Durgamba Motors Represente ...

Court: Karnataka

N.K. Patel, J.1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 30th November 2005, passed in M.V.C. No. 460/2000 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, ( for short, Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 5,09,000/- awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for Rs. 28,98,986/-, is inadequate.2. The appellant claims to be aged about 22 years, working as Manager in a Hotel, and getting salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. That on 25-04-1999, at about 9:45 P.M., when the appellant was travelling in a bus bearing Registration KA-20/A-9000, belonging to M/s. Durgamba Motors, to go from Bangalore towards Kundapura, the driver of the said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tree situate at the side of the road. Due to the impact, the appellant fell down and sustained injuries to h...

The Commissioner of Customs Vs. Leela Scottish Lace Ltd. and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KCCR982

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Sri K.N. Mohan, learned junior standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Commissioner of Customs, has placed before us written submissions, on behalf of the appellant along with Board Circulars No. 24/2001-Cus No. 19/2005-Cus and No. 31/2000-Cus and extract of Section 74 to Section 76 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962).2. We are still not very convinced as to the manner of working of the provisions of Section 75 and Section 76 of the Act, to allow duty drawback in respect of exported goods and in whose hands, to what extent and in what circumstances, particularly, having regard to the limitation imposed in terms of Rule 3 of the Customs and Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995, in terms of proviso to this Rule, Sub-rules (1) and (3) read in conjunction with Rule 6, Rule 8, Rule 11, Rule 13 and Rule 15 of the said Rules.3. Even the submissions made by the Commissioner have not cleared our doubts as to whether an exporter who has not himself either imp...

F. Moily Vs. the Lokayuktha, State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KCCR1001

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioner is questioning the endorsement issued by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. The matter arises in the following manner:The petitioner claims that for over a period of time he was working as a parcel booking agent, through ABC Parcel Service and other organizations in the Bangalore City Railway Station. According to him, respondents 7, 8 and 9 are working as Constables in the Government Railway Police Station. It is his claim that they have been regularly harassing him and demanding bribe of Rs. 25,000/- per month. In this connection, the petitioner, it appears, on several occasions requested the respondent No. 6, being the Controlling Officer, to rein in respondents 7 to 9. It is his case that respondents 6 to 9 have also amassed wealth, which is disproportionate to their known source of income. Hence, the petitioner lodges a complaint, with the first respondent regarding the alleged misappropriation of wealth disproportionate to their known source of in...

Smt. S. Kunjithamala and ors. Vs. Hvac Systems P. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2010]154CompCas405(Kar),[2010]99SCL299(Kar)

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') directed against the order dated November 30, 2009, passed by the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai, purported to be in C.A. No. 35 of 2009 in pending Company Petition No. 41 of 2005 which is in the form of a memo filed by the company petitioners on July 14, 2009, seeking for the following prayers:(A) To direct the present auditor Sri C.R. Murali's appointment as chartered accountant for verification process is withdrawn, forthwith.(B) Direct an independent auditor from Bangalore be appointed from a panel of names to be suggested by the Karnataka Association of Chartered Accountants.(C) Direct that the report of the verification and scrutiny for the purposes of quantification of misappropriation, fraud and defalcation of accounts of respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 be submitted by October 1, 2009.(D) Pass such other and further orders that this hon'bl...

Hmt Ltd. Vs. N.T. Rahamatulla Khan and Associates

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2010]155CompCas169(Kar)

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Though this appeal has come up for orders on the applications for vacating stay, with the consent of learned-counsel for the parties, the main matter itself is taken up for disposal.2. This original side appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, read with Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the following order passed by the learned company judge on October 29, 2009, while passing an order for admission and advertisement in Company Petition No. 74 of 2009.Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, more appropriately the minutes of the meeting annexure E and in view of Clause 5 therein, the petition is admitted. The petitioner is permitted to cause advertisement of the petition in one English edition of The Hindu and Prajavani, Kannada daily on or before November 11, 2009, fixing the date of hearing as December 9, 2009.3. It is aggrieved by this order, the respondent-company is...

Parshuram Patil Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KCCR813

ORDERArali Nagaraj, J.1. The accused in C.C. No. 141/2006 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Dn.) and CJM, Dharwad, has challenged in this revision the correctness of the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 25/1/2002 passed in the said case convicting him for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs. 400/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another period of 15 days for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for a further period of one month for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.2. Further, the revision petitioner-accused has also challenged in this revision the correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 1/9/2009 passed in Crl.A. No. 31/2008 by the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Dharw...

Sri A.P. Chandrashekaraiah and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KCCR1044

Manjula Chellur, J.1. These appeals are filed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.12.2009 in W.P. Nos. 2984/2009 and 3007 to 3008/2009.2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the writ petitions are as under:The appellants who were the petitioners before the learned Single Judge were the elected members of the Koppa Grama Panchayath in the elections held earlier. The 4th respondent Smt. Jayanthy was elected as Adhyaksha of the said Grama Panchayath having complied with the required qualifications to become an Adhyaksha.3. On 17.10.2008, a 'No-Confidence Motion' came to be passed by the 3rd respondent/Koppa Grama Panchayat under the leadership of one Mr. Shivaprakash. Fifteen members voted in favour of the resolution. At the instance of the 3rd respondent, the Assistant Commissioner concerned called for a meeting scheduled to be held on 12.11.2008 wherein out of nineteen members seventeen persons voted in favour of the motion. These are the undisputed facts...