Karnataka Court June 2010 Judgments

M/S Suraj Enterprises. Vs. the Authority for Clarifications

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR4724

1. This appeal is Hied by die appellant who is a dealer registered under die KVAT Act, 2003 by challenging Hie order dated 14.6.2006 made by the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling constituted under the said Act and to consider the following substantial question of law:Whether in the Joels and circumstances of the case, the respondent-authority was justified in holding that ammonia in aqueous solution is chargeable at 12.5% although ammonia in aqueous solution is nothing hut ammonia anhydrous mixed with water?2. The relevant facts leading to filing of this case are that the appellant who is the dealer in supplying Ammonia. Anhydrous and Aqueous Solution which is registered under the provisions of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and is also currently registered under the KVAT Act. filed an application before the Authority for Advance Ruling by seeking a clarification as to whether the product "AmmoniaAnhydrous" and "Ammonia Aqueous Solution" are one and the same and if so. the ...

Sri. V. Ananda Vs. the President/Secretary, Domlur Club and Others.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3548

ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure-A) passed by the Registrar of Societies, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore ('the Registrar' for short) holding that no action is warranted under Sections 28(c) & 29 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, I960 (the Act' for short) against the President and Secretary of Domlur Club, Bangalore.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the Registrar and perused the impugned order at Annexure-A.3. The case of the petitioner is that the President and General Secretary of respondent No. 1 - Domlur Club have disobeyed the order dated 17.10.2008 passed by the Registrar staying the election of managing committee of the Club scheduled on 19.10.2008. It is stated that the election was held on 19.10.2008. Hence, the petitioner filed an application dated 17.12.2008 before the Registrar to initiate appropriate legal proceedings before th...

Sandeep Kumar U. JaIn S/O Uttam Chanda JaIn Vs. Sri. V. theertha Prasa ...

Court: Karnataka

K. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The appellant/claimant in MVC No. 4969/2003 on the file of the Small Causes & Additional MACT, Bangalore, is before this Court under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation by modifying the impugned Judgment & award dated 26-07-2005 passed in the above said case.2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this appeal may be stated as under:It is the case of the appellant/claimant that due to rash and negligent driving of the Toyota Quallis bearing Registration No. KA-02AB5554 he came and dashed against the motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-02EB1753 and the claimant who was riding it along with a pillion rider (viz., the claimant in MVC No. 4968/2003) sustained grievous injuries. It is the case of the claimant that as on the date of the accident, he was 21 years, working as a co proprietor of Uttam Silk and earning Rs. 10.000/- per month and he has spent Rs. 2,00,000/- towards medical expenses, conveyance,...

Mr. Jayarama S/O Late Ishwara Poojary, Vs. Mr. Subbu Poojary S/O Late ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAshok N. Hinchigeri, J.1. The petitioners have called into question the order, dated 09.02.2009 (Annexure-A) passed by the IInd Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mangalore on I.A. No. 7 in O.S. No. 320/2003.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents filed the suit against 12 defendants including the petitioners' father (defendant No. 1). The petitioners claim is that the first defendant fifed the written statement on 24.08.2004 with the office. He passed away on 17.01.2006. On appearance of the LRs (the petitioners herein) filed the written statement on 20.08.2005 with the office. As the Trial Court recorded that the first defendant's LRs have net filed the written statement, they made IA No. 7 requesting the Court to receive the written statement by condoning the delay in filing the same. By its order dated 09.02.2009, the Trial Court rejected I.A. No. 7.3. Aggrieved by the same, this petition is present.4. Sri Pundikal Ishwar Bhat, the learned Counsel for the pet...

Nagaraj M.B. S/O M.C. Basappa Setty Vs. Returning Officer Marle Grama ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The petition comming on for Preliminary Hearing (B-Group), is considered for final disposal.2. The Counsel for the petitioner would raise a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition and would submit that the challenge in the present writ petition is rendered in fructuous. To consider this preliminary objection, the facts and circumstances are narrated:The petitioner claims that he had made an application to the second respondent on 30.1.2010, seeking reservation list for the years 2000-2005 and 2010, of Marie Grama Panchayath. He had made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking reservation list for the years 1993 and 2000. In view of the request, the second respondent had issued a Notification dated 18.1.201, in that, insofar as Marle-I Grama Panchayath was allotted two seats. According to the petitioner, the Government has issued a Notification for conducting Gram Panchayath elections scheduled to be held on 12.5.2...

Rt. Rev. S. Vasantha Kumar S/O Shri Suputhnappa, Bishop, Karnataka Cen ...

Court: Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.1. These two appeals are by the defendants in the trial court in the suit filed by the respective plaintiffs who questioned the order of transfer passed by the 1st defendant and I.A. 2 filed by the respective plaintiffs seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the functioning of the respective principals (plaintiff in respective suits) was allowed by the trial court by its common order on I.A.2. The defendants were restrained from interfering with the functioning of the respective plaintiffs as the principal of Bishop Cotton Boys' School and Bishop Cotton Girls' School respectively. The defendants therefore call in question the said common order in these two appeals and in view of the common grounds urged and common order being passed by the trial court, these two appeals are also disposed of by this common judgment.2. Col. John Ellis was appointed as the Principal of Bishop Cotton Boys' School, Bangalore by an appointm...

T. Suresha S/O Thimmanayaka Vs. Smt. Shivamma W/O V. Seenappa,

Court: Karnataka

L. Narayana Swamy, J.1. Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the parties, heard and finally disposed of.2. The Award dated 6.2.2007 passed by the MACT, Mandya in MVC No. 2039/2005 is challenged in this appeal. Appellant's counsel submits that the claimant sustained injury on 4.5.2001 while he was travelling in maxi cab No. KA.11-2772 with his father from Halebudanur to Maddur. It is submitted that in view of the accident, the petitioner, sustained fracture of Right Fumuer Subtrochanteric type and he was treated cosivervately and underwent on operation on 23.5.2001 wherein intramediillary rod was inserted and he was discharged on 18.6.2001 and he was advised to come for follow up treatment. The Doctor was examined as PW.2 He further stated in his affidavit that he treated the patient again in the year 2006 and the patient complained the pain of right thigh and lower limb, deformity, inability to sit or squat for long time. On examination he found healed s...

Sri. K.S. Raghavan Vs. the Director of Economics and Statistics and An ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3485

ORDER1. In this writ petition the correctness of the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short "the KAT), dismissing the application filed by the petitioner challenging the order discharging him from service is challenged.2. The applicant petitioner herein was appointed to the post of Enumerator in the Department of Economics and Statistics in the year 1988. He is discharged from service by the order impugned before the Tribunal dated 28.12.2002. He challenged the said order contending inter alia that the discharge order is in effect an order of punishment inflicted on him without holding any enquiry and without following the procedure prescribed. The Tribunal having referred to the relevant rules viz. The Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977, particularly rule 5 (1) (b) and rule 6 (1) of the rules and after examining the respective contention of the parties, in the light of the language used and the background in which the discharge onlei has been pa...

Puttaraju M. S/O. Late Muniramaiah, Vs. State by Hosakote Police

Court: Karnataka

ORDERArali Nagaraj, J.1. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 herein who are respectively accused Nos. 2 to 5 in S.C. No. 294/2009 pending on the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short) have challenged the correctness of the order dated 08.04.2010 passed in the said case rejecting their application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking an order discharging them of the offences under Sections 498A, 143, 114, 305 r/w Section 149 of IPC for which they have been chargesheeted by the police of Hosakote P.S. Bangalore Rural District.2. Though this matter is listed for admission, having regard to the nature of the impugned order and the offences alleged against these petitioners-accused and also the facts and circumstances of the case, it is taken for final disposal and the arguments of Sri H. Rajanna, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Vijaykumar Majage, the learned...

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Vs. S. Airyata Finance Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

N.K. Patil, J.1. This appeal is arising out of the common impugned order dated 2.5.2005 passed in Interest Tax Appeal Ko.26/Bang/2003 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'A' (for short 'the ITAT') to consider the following substantial questions of law:i. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the assessee had entered into only a hire purchase transaction with third parties and therefore no interest was received by the assessee in order to attract Interest Tax Provisions?ii. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the Interest Tax Act was not applicable without properly appreciating; the Judgment of the Apex Court in AIR 1996 SC 1178?iii. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in not taking into consideration that the vehicles financed by the assessee stood registered in the name of third parties and in the event of default of instalments the same would be transferred to the assessee and in respect of t...