Karnataka Court June 2011 Judgments
A.V. Chandrashekarappa and Another Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the common judgment and award dated 18th December, 1999, passed in LAC No.128 of 1986, by the Additional City Judge (Senior Division), Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as “ the Reference Court”), on the ground that the compensation awarded by the said Court is inadequate and needs to be enhanced. 2. Along with the appeal, Counsel for the appellants has filed I.A. No. 1 of 2006, for condoning the delay of 2471 days in filing the appeal. In the said application, it is stated that the land of the appellants along with other lands were notified and acquired and treating all the lands similar, the Land Acquisition Officer, awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 16,709/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, appellants filed an application, seeking reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for enhancement of ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Jubilant Organosys Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-2011
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 16.2.2010 and 9.2.2010 passed by the Revisionary Authority (Respondent No.4 herein) and etc.) 1. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs. In the usual course of its business, it avails credit of duty paid on inputs and such credit is utilized either for payment of duty on goods cleared into the domestic tariff area or towards payment of duty on goods exported under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (‘Rules, 2002’ for short). The petitioner has been regularly exporting bulk drugs and for the export so undertaken, it has obtained advance licenses for duty free import/procurement of inputs required for the manufacture of the bulk drugs. The advance licenses so obtained are being redeemed from time to time after discharge of the export obligation. The petitioner has been paying central excise duty on the...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bureau of Investigation, Bangalore Vs. J. Alexander, Ias, Addl ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-2011
(Prayer: This CRL.A filed u/s 378(2) Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order of acquittal dated 19.9.2003 on the file of XXI Addl. C.C., and S.J., and Spl. Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore, acquitting the respondents-accused for the offence P/U/S 120B of the IPC r/w Sec 13(2) of POC Act, 1938 and for the offence u/s 13(2) r/w Sec 13(1)(d) of POC Act, 1988.) 1. This appeal is by the CBI calling in question the acquittal of respondent Nos.1 to 3 by the trial court in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B of IPC r/w Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short). 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that during the financial year 1991-1992, the 1st respondent herein (A1) while working as the Additional Chief Secretary and Finance Commissioner to the Government of Karnataka, entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused No.2, the Chief Minister of Karnataka and both of them joined hands with accused Nos....
Tag this Judgment!Union of India, by Secretary, New Delhi Vs. H.G. Bhaskar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-2011
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 30.08.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in O.A.No.313/2005 vide Annexure-C.) 1. Union of India has preferred this writ petition challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 30.08.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (for short, ‘CAT), in O.A.No.313/2005, which application was filed by the respondent who is a retired Deputy Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat (RAW). 2. On account of the complaint lodged by one Prasad Rao, the respondent was kept under suspension by an order dated 16.07.2003 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short, ‘CCA Rules). A charge sheet was issued imputing the misconduct of the respondent by appointing in Inquiry officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report stating that...
Tag this Judgment!P.B. Pathy Vs. S. Pandurangam and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-2011
ARALI NAGARAJ, J. 1. This RFA is by the 1st defendant in O.S.No.4721/1998 on the file of learned XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH No.28) (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court” for short). Appellant-defendant has challenged in this appeal legality and correctness of the Judgment and Decree dated 18.7.2006 passed in the said suit decreeing the suit of the plaintiff (1st respondent herein) and directing the defendants 1 and 2 therein (appellant and respondent No.2 herein) to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within a period of 3 months from the date of the decree. 2. Stated in brief, the case of the plaintiff is as under: (a) The suit schedule property originally belonged to one Sri. C. Ramachandra Rao. After his demise, his two sons, namely, Sri. Ramakrishna Rao and Sri. R. Vitthal Rao inherited the said property and thus they became its joint owners in possession. (b) After the death of their father, the said Ramakrishna ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sooryanarayana Bhat Vs. Union of India Rep by Its Secretary and Oth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-2011
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari and quash the Notification Dt.28.4.10 the circular Dt.26.5.1997 Bearing No.7/1997 which are produced as Ann-A and B.) 1. The petitioner has sought for quashing the notification Annexure-A dated 28.4.2010 by which, Smt. Usha R.A., daughter of Late Annappa Gowda is appointed as Oath Commissioner conferring her with jurisdiction to attest the affidavits to be used in Civil Courts only. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to confer power on Oath Commissioners to attest and administer oath in respect of the affidavits intended to be filed in Criminal Courts also. Certain other consequential reliefs are also sought for. 2. The records reveal that the petitioner is an advocate practicing in Sullya, Dakshina Kannada District. According to him, restricting the Oath Commissioners to administer oath and to attest the affidavits intended to be filed o...
Tag this Judgment!Nagesha Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-2011
V.S. APPA RAO, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 374, CR.P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 29-7-2006 in S.C. No.157/2005 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, whereby the sole accused Nagesha was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. 2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:- i) The accused Nagesha, his wife Smt. Saraswathamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), PW-2 Harisha son and daughter Anitha were living in their land at Ranganathalli. Since the accused was addicted to alcohol, was ill-treating and harassing the deceased, the parents of the deceased and brothers of accused brought them to a house adjacent to the house of PW-1 Govindappa, one of the elder brothers of the accused. Even there also the accused was ill-treating the deceased. ii) On the intervening night of 21st and 22nd April, 2005 the accused beheaded hi...
Tag this Judgment!State of KarnatakA. Vs. B K Srinivasamurthy, So Kariyanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is by the Lokayukta police. Tumkur, calling in question the judgment of acquit The passed by the trial court in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 7. U(i)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. 2. The prosecution cast: in short is that, the respondent .accused while Working as a Typist in the office of the Block Development Officer, Chikkanayakruiahalli and being entrusted with the work of preparing salary bills of the employees in the Government College Hostel, Chikkanayakanahalli, while working in that capacity, demanded Rs.600/ as bribe amount from the complainant K.N.Lakshmana in order to send the arrears of salary bill of the complainant. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, the accused demanded the amount on 6.9.93 and accepted the same on 7.9.93 at 3.15 p.m. Based on the complaint lodged by PW-1 Lakshmana, the Lokayukta police registered the case and got prepared the entrustment rnahazar Ex.P2 and thereafter the ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. S. Thippeswamy, Mangalore Vs. Mangalore University, Mangalore, by ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 15.04.2011 passed by the Respondent produced at Annexure-A and etc.,) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner was an Associate Professor in the Mangalore University. He was employed with the University from the year 1995. He joined the University as a Lecturer and he was promoted as a Senior Lecturer in 1999 and as a Reader in 2004 and as on the date of the petition, he was an Associate Professor. The petitioner claims that he had a record of service which was without any blemish. The petitioner claims academic excellence and it is stated that on a project proposal, entirely conceived by him, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research had awarded the project to the University, as a result of which, a sum of Rs.2.10 Crore was placed at the disposal of the University to carry out the research activities as ...
Tag this Judgment!Madappa Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, Mysore and Other ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
1. The revenue authorities are notorious for their wavered, arbitrary exercise of statutory powers, particularly, while acting under the provisions of Sections 127 to 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. These provisions deal with the changes of entries rather change of names in the record of rights and other related records of the revenue department which is essentially to identify the person from whom the land revenue is to be collected which is a tax levied on agricultural and on the owner of possessor, occupant of the land and for such purpose an account in the name of the person is maintained by the revenue authorities and by assessing the quantum of revenue to be collected depending on the nature of the lands and at the rate of per acre etc. 3. Revenue entries get changed as and when ownership in the subject land changes as the revenue authorities should know who is current owner of the land from whom such tax can be collected. 4. The...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »