Karnataka Court January 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jk Tyre and Industries Ltd. Rep by Its General Manager Vs. Assistant C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2011
(Prayer: This CEA is filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 Arising out of Order dated 02-05-2008 Passed in Miscellaneous Order No. 119/2008, Praying that this Hon’ble Court may be Pleased To: i) To decide the substantial Question of Law Stated therein. ii) Set aside the cestat, Bangalore in Miscellaneous Order No. 119/2008 dated 02-05-2008 in the ends of Justice and Equity.) 1. This matter is place before this Bench for answering the question of law, as to whether the Division Bench decision of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore III V/S Denso Kirloskar Industry Private Limited reported in 2008 (224) ELT 207 (Kar) requires reconsideration. 2. In the order of reference dated 31.7.2008 it is observed that, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the said case in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore III Vs. Denso Kirloskar Industry Private Limited requires reconsideration, as the Division Bench of this Court while interpreting ...
Chandru H.N. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2011
(Prayer: These Petitions are referred to full Bench to Decide the Question as to "Whether the guidelines of Government Vide Order No. Dpar 4 STR 2001, Bangalore dated 22.11.2001 Relating to the Transfer of Government Sevants which has come into force with effect from 22.11.2001 has Statutory force or Not?".) ORDER ON REFERENCE 1. W.P. No. 6551/2010 and connected W.P. No. 13605/2008 are posted before this Full Bench for consideration of the question of law framed in W.P. No. 6551/2010, which reads as under: “Whether the guidelines of Government vide order No. DPAR 4 STR 2001, Bangalore dated 22.11.2001 relating to the transfer of Government servants which has come into force with effect from 22.11.2001 has statutory force or not?” 2. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 6551/2010, which is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 25.02.2010 in Application No.4452/2009, wh...
Indian Machine Tool Manufacturers Association Rep.by Executive Directo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2011
(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to prohibit the Respondents, their officers, servants agents and/or their successors in office from holding any proceedings pursuant to or in furtherance of the notice dt. 1.12.08 vide ann-G and notice dt. 1.12.08 vide anx-G1, and notice dt. 1.9.09 vide anx-L and etc.) 1. A learned Single Judge, by order dt. 8/2/2010, referred these petitions to the Division Bench to be heard along with W.P.623/02, since the questions raised therein are identical to the question that arise for decision-making in these petitions. Petitioner has assailed the notices of even date 1.12.2008 Annexures-G and G1 and notice dt. 1.9.2009 Annexure-L of the 5th and 6th respondents, respectively, and seek a declaration that the petitioner’s premises is not a ‘marriage hall’ as defined under the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979, for short the ‘Act’, sequentially not chargeable to ...
K.Ramachandra Reddy, S/O Kodandareddy. Vs. the Karnataka State Transpo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. In these petitions, petitioner is seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal in R.P.No.856/06 and 908/2006 at Annexure 'A and for grant such other reliefs.2. As per the events, a joint survey has been conducted by the competent authority in the presence of the representatives of KSRTC and others on 7.9.2006 and by a resolution of the 1st respondent, it was decided to grant stage carriage permit to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said resolution, revision petitions were filed by the 2nd respondent-KSRTC and the 3rd respondent. Ultimately, impugned order came to be passed by the Tribunal allowing the revision and setting aside 'he permit granted to the petitioner by order dated 27.10.2009. Hence, these petitions.3. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent-KSTA has ensured that joint survey is conducted as per the direction of this Court: in the case of KSRTC v. Pauli Go vis reported in I...
Sonu Infotech, and ors. Vs. Chief Administrative Officer, National Rur ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are calling in question the Circular dated 04.10.2010 issued by the 1st respondent. A direction is sought to the 1st respondent to fix the salary structure of the personnel whose services are provided by the tenderers by strictly following the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'EPF Act').2. Petitioners are running an agency which supplies staff such as Programme Manager, System Analyst, IT Consultant, IT Consulting Assistant, Data Providing Technical Assistant, etc, to the Government Organisation in the State of Karnataka. It is the ease of the petitioners that they used to participate in the tender process hitherto called for by the various Government Organizations for supplying the manpower-. However, by the impugned Circular dated 04.10.2010 produced at Annexure-H the respondents have issued certain guidelines directing the concerned authorities to calcula...
Sri G. R. Devaraju S/O Late G.H.Rangaiah. Vs. the State of Karnataka, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. We have, heard Mr.P.S.Raiagopal, learned Senior Counsel as well as Mr.M.S. Anandaramu, Counsel who has entered appearance 'for Respondent No.5. The fact situation is that the petitioner is before this Court questioning the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal on 10.01.2011 granting the application I.A.5 for amendment thereby permitting Respondent No.5 to amend the application. The order would also disclose that the Tribunal has directed initiation of contempt proceedings as against the fourth respondent. Mr.P.S.Rajagopal submits that the challenge is only to that part of the order, where the application-for amendment has been granted.2. The case of the petitioner is that on 13.3.2008, he was deputed to Minor" Irrigation Department, Chitradurga as Executive Engineer in place of one Mr.Govindappa and the same was subsequently recalled. Suffice it to say that, the petitioner was disturbed from his place of posting at Chitradurga, which was the subject matter of an appl...
M/S. Icon Apparels Private Ltd, and ors. Vs. the South Indian Bank Ltd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Petitioners have availed loan from the respondent-Bank. The respondent-Bank has initialed proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short).2. According to the petitioners, the procedure prescribed under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act have not been complied with by the respondent-Bank. It is the contention of the petitioner that the bank has approached the Magistrate by filing an application under Section 14 of the Act seeking its intervention for taking over possession of the mortgaged properly. The learned Magistrate has passed the order at Annexure-A holding that the bank was entitled to take possession of the schedule property through the assistance of the court or the jurisdictional police. A direction is issued to the concerned police to provide necessary aid to the bank in getting the premises.3. The contention of the petitioner is that without follo...
L.Krishnamurthy S/O Lakkappa, Vs. M/S.National Ins. Co. Ltd, and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. The Tribunal accepting the medical records, and evidence of PW.3 -Dr.Rajesh has held that claimant had suffered following injuries:1) Multiple abrasions over dorsum of left foot2) Tenderness over dorsum of left foot3) Fracture of left lateral malleolus.3. The claimant was treated in District Hospital, Chitradurga. The claimant was aged about 50 years at the time of accident. He was an agriculturist by occupation. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of 54,100/- rounded off to Rs.55,000/- under followingI Pain and suffering & traumaRs.20,000II Probable medical expenses. Attendant charges, conveyanceRs. 5,000III Loss of income during treatment periodRs. 4.500IV Loss of amenities to be enjoyed in lifeRs. 3,000V Loss of future income due to Disability (Rs. 150 x 12 x 12)Rs.21,600Total- Rs.54,100Rounded off to- Rs.55,0004. On hearing the learned counsel for parties and on reconsideration of the matter, I am of the opinion th...
A. Ananthapadmanabhachar S/O P.V.Annaihchar. Vs. the Management of M/S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 6,3.2007 and award dated 24.9.2009 m I.D No.99/2005 passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore rejecting the dispute raised by the petitioner.2. Petitioner was the Conductor in the respondent -Corporation. On 27/28.12.2004 petitioner was conducting the Bus on the route from Mysore to Chickballapur. The checking squad of the Corporation conducted a check and found that the petitioner despite collecting fare of 24 denominations from each of 15 passengers failed to issue tickets and to make entry in the Waybill. For this misconduct of pilferage in revenue, articles of charges were issued, enquiry was held and on 20.08.2005. the petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by this order of dismissal, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Court under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). On the basis of pleadings, the Labour Cour...
M/S. Asian Paint Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax, and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the rectification orders dated 12.01.201 I and the original order dated 18.12.2010 passed under Section 69(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act for the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2906-2007 passed by the 1st respondent at Annexure A and also to set aside the demand of VAT. interest and penalty imposed by the respondent as per Annexure A1.2. The petitioner-company is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. 1956 registered under the Karnataka VAT Act of 2003. The Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore undertook assessment for the period 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, concluded the assessment and, orders were passed in December 2006 and October 2008 for the period 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 respectively. According to the petitioner. once again the respondent initiated suomoto proceedings under Section 63A of the KVAT Act and issued show cause notice on 11.1 1.2010 as per Section 63A of the KVAT Act to levy VAT on frei...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »