Karnataka Court July 2011 Judgments

Basappa Vs. Smt. Nagarathnamma and Others

Court: Karnataka

1. RFA.No.1665/2006 is filed by the original defendant- Basappa against the judgment and decree dated 16.2.2006 passed in O.S.No.483/2000, by the learned II Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.,) and CJM, Davanagere. Whereas RFA.No.1195/2011 is filed by the original plaintiff- Basappa against the judgment and award passed in O.S.No.136/2006 (old No.118/1997). O.S.No.483/2000 was filed for partition and separate possession, whereas O.S.No.136/2006 was filed for Permanent injunction. Since the properties and the parties involved in both the matters are common, they were heard together. O.S.No.118/1997 came to be dismissed, whereas O.S.No.483/2000 filed for partition was decreed. Genealogy of the parties is as under:- Shivalingappa                                               &n...

The Enforcement Officer Directorate of Enforcement, Foreign Exchange R ...

Court: Karnataka

(This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C by the advocate for the appellant praying to set aside the judgment dt.20.12.2006 passed in C.C.No.86/1998, on the file of the presiding officer, Spl. Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore P/U/S.56(1) of FERA) The Appellant has challenged the acquittal of the respondent for the charge under Section 56(1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 (hereinafter called as the ‘FERA’ for short) on a trial held by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore. 2. The facts reveal that the appellant who is the complainant herein is the Assistant Director in Enforcement Directorate, (FERA), Bangalore and had received information that M/s. Pheroze Framrose, a firm situated in Richmond Circle, is engaged in releasing substantial foreign exchange unauthorisedly by floating the norms and guidelines prescribed by the RBI and in these circumstances, an investigation was being held and the presence of the respondents and other ac...

Ramegowda Vs. Boramma and Others

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This RSA is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dt. 10.11.2005 passed in R.A.No.73/2000 on the file of the Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and JMFC, Srirangapatna, allowing the appeal and setting aside the Judgment and Decree dt. 30.8.2000 passed in O.S.No.66/95 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, K.R.Pet.) 1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court allowing the appeal of the respondent herein and dismissing the suit filed by the appellant herein. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: The parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for the purpose of convenience. The appellant herein is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are the defendants. 3. The appellant instituted a suit for redemption of mortgage and it is his claim that on 25-05-1976, he executed a conditional sale deed after receiving loan amount of Rs.4,000/- from Late Thimme Gowda, the ...

Noor Mohammed Panali Vs. the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Anoth ...

Court: Karnataka

1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners who are public servants are seeking the relief of quashing of their chargesheets filed in Court or FIR filed with the jurisdictional police and in cases where the Court has taken cognizance of the offences and issued process, they want all such proceedings to be quashed on the ground that sanction under Section 19 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 is not granted/refused. 2. W.P. Nos. 2608/07, 3733/07, and 3855/07 are cases where chargesheets are filed without sanction, still the Court has taken cognizance of the offence and issued process to the accused. 3. In W.P. Nos. 3368/07, 3833/07, 3760/07, 4025/07 and 4026/07 the sanction sought for is expressly refused, still chargesheet are filed, the Court has taken cognizance of the offence and issued process to the accused. 4. At the time of hearing all these writ petitions, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties submitted that it would be appropriate for this Court to decide th...

M/S. Kairali Enterprises, Kannur District, Reptd. by Its Managing Dire ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the R1 the Deputy Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga to immediately release the seized 350 bags of rice and the seized two transport goods vehicles bearing Registration Nos.KA-12-A-0479 and KL-13-R-994, which were produced before him as per the property form bearing No.43/2009 in Cr.No.435/2009.) 1. By virtue of an order dated 12.3.2010, the matter is referred to Division Bench for decision. In the present case, whether the action of the authorities of the respondent-State following the provisions of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution Control) Order, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1992 order’ for short) is repugnant and therefore contravenes the provisions of Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2001 Order’ for short) of the Central Government has to b...

Lingappa Achary Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Secretary and O ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, D.K. Mangalore, DT 26.4.11 produced annexure-G whereby confirming the order Dt. 16.4.10 passed by the Asst. Commissioner, Puttur, D.K. which is produced at Annexure-F and ETC.) 1. Provisions of section 4 of the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978 [for short ‘the Act’] are so drastic, so pervasive, so assertive, so empathic, so impacting that even a bona fide purchaser of a land which had been granted in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste/scheduled tribe community in a court auction sale is also caught in the crossfire of a transaction which is covered by the provisions of section 4 of the Act. 2. In the present case, writ petitioner is a person who had so purchased certain land which had been originally granted in favour of a person belonging to schedu...

Md. Aamir Waseem Vs. the State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka Gulbarga

PATIL, J 1. Petitioner in these petitions has sought for a direction, directing the third respondent herein to treat the percentage of the petitioner in the qualifying examination of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as 40% by applying the rule of Mathematics with regard to rounding off of numbers, while the petitioner has secured 39.666% in the qualifying examination. Further, he has sought for a direction to third respondent to publish an additional rank list giving ranking to the petitioner for engineering course pursuant to Common Entrance Test-2011 considering the marks obtained by the petitioner, in the common Entrance Test Conducted in 2011, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been prosecuting his studies at Farhan Composite Pre-University Arts and Science College at Gulbarga. Through the said college, he appeared for the II year Pre-University Examination, conducted in the month of March 2011 and he has secured the marks out o...

Sri R Adhikesavulu Naidu Son of Sri. R. Krishnama Maldi. and ors. Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDER 1. "Bangalore was a beautiful city - once. It was a city with magic and charm, with elegant avenues, gorgeous flowers, lovely gardens and plentiful spaces. Not now. That was before the invasion of concrete and steel, of soot and snmke, of high-rise and the fast buck. Gone are the flowers, gone are the trees, gone are the avenues, gone are the spaces. We are now greeted with tall Duffing chimneys and monstrous high rise buildings, both designed to hurt the eye, the environment and the man. But they are thought by many as symbols of progress and modernity. They have come to stay. Perhaps they are necessary. Nostalgic sentiments, we suppose, must yield to modern societal requirements. Smoking Chimneys produce much needed, goods. High-rise buildings save much-scarce space. They have a place in the scheme of things. But where, how, to what extent, at what cost are the questions raised by some aggiifrved citizens of Bangalore. They want congestion to be prevented, population density to...

R. Adhikesavulu Naidu and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

1. “Bangalore was a beautiful city – once. It was a city with magic and charm, with elegant avenues, gorgeous flowers, lovely gardens and plentiful spaces. Not now. That was before the invasion of concrete and steel of soot and smoke, of high-rise and the fast buck. Gone are the flowers, gone are the trees, gone are the avenues, gone are the spaces. We are now greeted with tall puffing chimneys and monstrous high-rise buildings, both designed to hurt the eye, the environment and the man. But they are thought by many as symbols of progress and modernity. They have come to stay. Perhaps they are necessary. Nostalgic sentiments, we suppose, must yield to modern societal requirements. Smoking chimneys produce much needed goods. High-rise buildings save much scarce space. They have a place in the scheme of things. But where, how, to what extent, at what cost, are the questions raised by some aggrieved citizens of Bangalore. They want congestion to be prevented, population densit...

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore and Another Vs. M/S Vijaya B ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(1)KCCR28(DB)(SN)

(Prayer: This ITA is filed u/s.260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 30-09-2010 passed in ITA NO.105/BANG/2009, for the assessment year 200-2003, paying to: I. Formulate the Substantial Questions of Law Stated therein, II. Allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore in ITA No. 105/BANG/2009, dated 30-09-2010, Confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and Confirm the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU, Bangalore, in the interest of Justice and Equity.) 1. The appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: “When the assessee pays tax subsequent to the 1st day of April of an assessment year but before or along with the date of return, if that tax is ordered to be refunded, what is the date from which interest is payable on such refund under Section 244-A? 2. The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal which has granted interest on the amount o...