Karnataka Court February 2011 Judgments

The Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/S. Leela Scottish Lace Ltd and Anoth ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: These tax referred cases are referred by the Assistant Registrar, Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal U/s. 130A of Customs Act, in Appeal No. C/105/02, No. C/161,162/02 and No. C/166/02 for the opinion of this court on the questions of law as stated in the references.) (Prayer: Misc. Cvl. 17563/2010 is filed under Section 151 of code of civil procedure read with Section 130A of the customs act for expunction of remarks contained in the orders passed by this court on 3/8/2010 and 27/8/2010.) (Prayer: Misc. Civil 17565/2010 is filed under Section 151 of code of civil procedure read with Section 130A of the Customs Act for waiver of costs imposed on the petitioner.) 1. These four tax referred cases are before us for answering the following four common questions arising out of the order dated 10/1/2003 passed in appeal No. C/105/02, No. C/160/02, No. C/161,162/02 and No. C/166/02 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribu...

S. K. Bidarahalli Vs. General Manager (Personnel Service) Cum Appellat ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This writ appeal is filed under section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the writ petition No. 19385/2010(S-RES) dated 27/09/2010.) 1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in writ petition No.19385/2010 being aggrieved by the order dated 27.09.2010, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition dated 23.02.2010 passed by the second respondent as per Annexure-D. The order dated 28.04.2010 at Annexure-G made by respondent No.1 wherein the appellant has been imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement for his misconduct. The appellant has been Senior Manager at Malakpet Branch, Hyderabad. The charge memo was served upon him alleging that he had committed acts of misconduct enumerated therein from S1 Nos. 1 to 12. Being not satisfied with the explanation given by the appellant domestic enquiry was initiated and the appellant denied the charges. Sufficient oppor...

State of Karnataka Vs. Venkatappa and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012CrLJ881

1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.9.2006 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge and Presiding officer, Fast Track Court-II, Kolar in S.C. No.65/2000 acquitting the respondents-accused Nos.1 and 2 of the charges leveled against them for the offences punishable under Section 304, IPC and under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act r/w Section 379 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as under: Accused No.1-Venkatappa is the owner of Mango grove in Survey No.56/2000 of Sagarasanahalli in Kamasamudram Hobli, Bangalore Taluk measuring about 1 acres. He had fenced the said land with barbed wire. He had also unauthorisedly abstracted electricity from the nearby pole erected by the Electricity Board by connecting a live wire from the transmission line to the barbed wire fencing in order to protect the mango grove from wild animals. Accused No.2-Thimmappa lent a helping hand to accused No.1 in connecting the live wir...

Mrs. Kavitha Mahesh Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commissi ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(2)KCCR1662

(This Election Petition is filed under Section 81 of the representation of people act, 1951, praying to declare the election of the 5th respondent to Karnataka Legislative Assembly from K.R. Pura Assembly constituency as null and void and etc.)Mr. Shashikantha, learned counsel for the respondent has objected to the marking of the four CDs produced and identified as MPEGAV-2, MPEGAV-5, MPEGAV-6 and MPEGAV-14, from out of the 14 CDs said to be comprising the videograph of the event, which has been videographed by persons commissioned by the Election Commissioner of India, to videograph the happenings during the elections to the Karnataka Assembly from the stage of filing of nomination paper before a Returning Officer till the stage of declaration of results and in respect of No.151 K.R. Puram Assembly Constituency in Karnataka State, pointing out that when the petitioner herself had described the entire event is comprised in 14 CDs, the entire sequence of events videographed and as depic...

B. MatrIn and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Praying to strike down rule 3[1][C] of Karnataka Excise [Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors] Rules 1968 as Amendede by Notification Dt. 30.06.03, as per Ann-A so far as Petitioners are Concerned and Quash the Notification Dt. 3.7.09, produced at Ann-D, issued by the R1, in so far as Petitioners are Concerned.) 1. These set of Writ Petitions are filed seeking to strike down Rule 3(11) (c) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 as amended by Notification dated 30.06.2003 and also to quash the notification issued on 3.7.2009 by the 1st respondent and also quash the license in Form No.CL-II (c) dated 25.03.2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of Mysore Sales International Limited., and for such other orders. 2. Petitioners are said to be CL-2 and CL-9 license holders respectively granted under the provisions of Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Fo...

D. Sudhakar and Others Vs. D.N. Jeevaraju and Others

Court: Karnataka

(These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of Indian, praying to issue a writ or order or direction declaring the order of disqualification dated 10.10.2010 Annexure-H, passed by the respondent No.2 to be unconstitutional, illegal and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14, 16 and 19 of Constitution of India and for being violative of Schedule 10 of the Constitution and Rules made by under Karnataka Assembly, and therefore being null and void, etc.) Mohan Shantanagoudar, J. The petitioners, who were Members of the 13th Karnataka Legislative Assembly, have questioned the order dated 10th October 2010 passed by the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, disqualifying them from being the members of the Legislative Assembly on the ground of violation of paragraph-2(2) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, by filing these writ petitions. On such disqualification, the respective constituencies represented...

Smt. Lalitha, Bangalore Vs. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Rep by ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This W.P is filed Under Article 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India Praying to call for the Records relating to ending with the impugned order dated 8.12.2010 passed on I.A.NO.IV in E.P.NO.22 OF 2010 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil judge, Bangalore City Vide Annex-E; quash the said impugned order dated 8.12.2010 Passed on I.A.NO.IV IN E.P.NO.22 OF 2010 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil judge, Bangalore City Vide Annex-E and etc.) 1. Petitioner has contested the Election from Ward No.6 of Thanisandra, Bangalore East Taluk and she was declared duly elected on 05.04.2010. The result of the election was published in Karnataka Gazette on 16.04.2010. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 also contested the said election, but have lost. The second respondent herein filed Election Petition on 24.05.2010 in E.P.No.22/2010 under Section 33 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act 1976, before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, (CCH-11). On 13.08.2010, the petitioner filed det...

S.M. Kannaiah Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Secretary Urban Develo ...

Court: Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J. The brief facts leading to this reference are as follows: The Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BDA’ for short) had acquired certain lands by issue of notifications under Sections 17(1) and 19 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as the ‘BDA Act’ for short) for formation of a housing layout known as Nagarbhavi II Stage Layout. The lands measuring 3 acres 34 guntas (including 2 guntas of kharab land) in Sy.No.55/2 of Malagalu village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk owned by the petitioner was also included in the said process of acquisition. The challenge made to the said acquisition by the petitioner, through his petition in W.P.No.2272/1987 was dismissed. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner moved the State Government and on acceding to the request of the petitioner, the said lands were withdrawn from acquisition by issue of notification dated 05.10.2007 under Sect...

A.A. Enterprises Represented by Its Partner S.S. Ashok Vs. Tektronix ( ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, praying for review of the order dated 15.9.2009 passed in W.P. No. 24816/2009 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.) 1. Ms.Ujwala, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay of 4 days in filing this review petition is on account of the time taken to decide as to whether the review petition is to be filed of S.L.P is to be filed. She further submits that the paper were also sent to her counter-part in Delhi. 2. Sri Vamshi Krishna, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the delay of 4 days in filing this review petition is not properly and cogently explained. 3. Appreciating the explanation offered, this Court deems it just to condone the delay of 4days in filing this review petition. Accordingly Misc.Cvl.7798/10 is allowed. 4. The petitioner has sought the review of the order, dated 15.09.2009 passed by this Court W.P.No.24816/09. The Trail Court’s or...

Sri H.N.Nagaraja Rao Vs. Smt. Sushma Rani

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(2)KCCR1001(DB)

The appellant is challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.)., Additional CJM, Arasikere dated 15.10.2009 passed in MVC No.8/04. 2. The appellant was respondent in the aforesaid petition. The respondent/wife filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage solemnized between them on 9.12.1998 at Hassan on the ground of cruelty. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 9.12.1998. they have a daughter now aged about 12 years. According to the respondent/wife they lived together only for few months. After she gave birth to the daughter, appellant started ill-treating her with utmost cruelty on the ground that she has given birth to a female child. The appellant is working as an engineer in a private industry. According to the respondent, the appellant used to tell before others that he had committed a blunder in marrying the respondent and if, he had ma...