Karnataka Court August 2011 Judgments

Malathi Rau, Bangalore and Others Vs. the Chief Engineer (West), Banga ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 7.6.2011 passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure ‘A’, etc.) 1. In these cases, the petitioners have sought for quashing the order at Annexure ‘A’ dated 7.6.2011 whereby the first respondent has refused to recall the sanction plan bearing L.P.No.(JC)L.P.No.546/2010-11 dated 16.9.2010 (Annexure ‘H’) issued by the third respondent in favour of the fourth respondent, for quashing the sanction plan at Annexure ‘A’ and for certain other reliefs. 2. The 4th respondent is the owner of the property bearing No.41/7, 15th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-3. She had made an application to the third respondent for sanction of the plan to put up construction thereon. The third respondent issued a sanction plan as per Annexure ‘H’ dated 16.9.2010 in favour of the fourth respondent permitting her to put up constru...

Sri B S Yedd Yurappa, Former Chief Minister of Karnataka Vs. the State ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The petitioner has preferred this petition with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail in Special CC No. 136/11 (CCH No.24) pending on the file of the learned Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore. 2. The complaint made by the 2nd respondent came to be registered in. P C R No.3/2011 on the file of the Special Judge under Chapter II of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The leaned Special Judge by order dated 8.8.2011 has issued summons u/s 204(b) of Cr.P.C to the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 13(l)(d), 13(l)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act punishable under If Section 13(2) of the said Act and under sections 405, 406, 420, 463, 466, 468, 471 of IPC and under sections 3 & 4 r/w section 9 of the (Restriction and Transfer), Act, 1991. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that in view of issue of summons u/s 204(b) of Cr.P.C, after forming an opinion that there are sufficient grounds for issue of process, the petitioner apprehends imminent danger of his...

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Usha and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2012KAR4999

(Prayer: This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV ACT Against the judgment and award dated 15.09.2009. passed in MVC.NO.1336/2006 On the file of the motor vehicles accidents claims tribunal no.3, Bijapur, Partly allowing the claim petition and awarding Rs.4,40,000/- With interest of 6% P.A.)1. This appeal by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Is directed against the judgment and award dated 15-09-2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No.3. Bijapur, in MVC No. 1336/2006. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. to the claimants, who are arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein, for the death of one Tukaram Kore on 14.09.2006 due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vechicle accident that occurred on 25.08.2006, due to the rash and negligent driving of the Truck bearing No.JH-05/A-8675. The claimants are the widow, children and mother of the deceased. At the time of the accident, the deceased was riding...

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore and Another Vs. M/S. Micro L ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012ILR(Kar)2606; 2012(3)KCCR137(SN)

(Prayer: This I.T.A. filed under section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 20.05.2005 passed in IT(SS)A No.21/Bang/2002 and CO No.15/Bang/2002 for the assessment period 1988-99, praying to formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein and allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in IT(SS)A No.2131/Bang/2002 and CO No.15/Bang/2002 dated 20.05.2005 confirming the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Asst), Special Range-2, Bangalore and etc.) 1. These appeals are by the revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal invalidating the assessment on the ground of an invalid notice issued under Section 158BC. 2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are one and the same. 3. ITA No.749/2006 was admitted on 16.02.2010 to consider the following two substantial questions of law: i) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct holding that the not...

B.S. Yeddyurappa Vs. State of Karnataka, Through Superintendent of Pol ...

Court: Karnataka

(PRAYER: THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN PCR NO.18/2011 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 BEFORE THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR LOKAYUKTA CASES, BANGALORE CITY (VIDE ANNEXURE A) AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 8.08.2011 PASSED SPECIAL JUDGE IN PCR NO.18/2011 REFERRING THE COMPLAINT FOR INVESTIGATION U/S 156(3) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1-POLICE (VIDE ANNEXURE B) AND ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY RESPONDENT NO.1-POLICE IN CRIME NO.33/2011 (DISPENSATION IS OUGHT FOR PRODUCTION OF THE FIR)) 1. The legality and correctness of the order passed by the Special Judge for Lokayukta Cases, Bangalore City in P.C.R. No.18/2011 referring the complaint of the second respondent for investigation and to report, to the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore Urban, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is called in question in these petitions. 2...

Lakshminarayana I Bhat Vs. the Assistant General Manger (Personnel) an ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 29.8.2007 issued by the first respondent as per Annexure-E and order dated 30.11.2007 issued by the R2 as per Annexure-J as the same are illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law.) 1. The petitioner was employed as Assistant Manager in Syndicate Bank. He was issued a charge sheet dated 16.08.2006. The charge leveled reads as follows: “That you have been working as Asst. Manager at Goa, Curchorem branch since 2.5.2000 until you were placed under suspension vide proceedings/order dated 15.10.2005. While working in your position as such you abused your official position and put through various fraudulent transactions and misappropriated bank’s funds to the tune of Rs.69.06 lakh by creating fictitious Loans on Deposits and closing such loans by raising debits to Interest on Deposit account; making fictitious debit entries to interest on Deposit account and ...

Ultrafilter Gmbh, Represented by Its Constituted Attorney Vs. Ultrafil ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Company Appeal is filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act against the order dated 12.12.2001 passed in CP No.57/98 on the file of the Bench Officer, Company Law Board, Southern Region, Chennai, disposing the petition by directing the respondent/Company herein to purchase the shares held by the petitioner herein on a value to be determined by the statutory auditors of the Company on the basis of the balance sheet as on 31.03.1999 and etc.) 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2001, passed by the Company Law Board, Chennai in Company Petition No. 57/1998, directing the petitioner company therein to purchase the shares held by the respondent therein, among consequential reliefs, the respondent has filed the present appeal. 2. The first respondent is a Private Limited Company. It was incorporated in December 1985, for the manufacture of filter equipment. The second respondent holds 51.82% of the shares. The Appellant holds 26% of the shares. The respondent No.1 and the ...

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. the Deputy Labour Com ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Ram Mohan Reddy, J Petitioner-Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the order dated 19.3.2009, Annexure-B, of the 2nd respondent-Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, for short Act, preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent-Deputy Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority, which when rejected by order dated 28.8.2010, Annexure-D, has presented this petition. 2. Facts briefly stated are: The 3rd respondent entered service by inclusive of his name in the badly list on 18.11.1975 and attained the age of superannuation on 28.2.2005, having served the petitioner for 29 years. On his retirement, the petitioner-Corporation computed gratuity under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants Gratuity Regulations, for short ‘Regulations’, by reckoning wage component as Rs.7,940/- and continuous service as 20 years and 4 months after excluding one year while on badly list and 7 years, 10 months and 13 days as break in service, due to leave, ...

Haragi Parasappa @ Giddappa Vs. State of Karnataka Represented by Its ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This W P is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to grant such other writ direction or relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.) 1. There is no dearth of half-baked, incompetent, irresponsible advocates in legal profession. It appears, their number is increasing rather than decreasing! It is high time the professional body – Bar Council wakes up from its slumber take a deep breath, examine the level of professional standards and quality of the members practicing the noble legal profession and ensure measures to make available legal services to the community in a proper manner; that quality legal service is made available to the members of the public and the society. For such purpose it may not be sufficient if cosmetic changes are attempted at the entry levels but it is equally important that persons who are in the legal profession and those who might have got in earlier are also possessed with...

Sannamma, Mandya District Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya and O ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(2)KantLJ493

(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dt. 29.06.10 passed by R2 Deputy Commissioner, Mandya vide Annex-F.) 1. A writ petition without any rhyme or reason or without any ground against a remand order passed by the Deputy Commissioner while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 5A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [for short, the Act] as per order dated 29-6-2010 [copy of Annexure-F to the writ petition]. 2. The Deputy Commissioner having entertained an appeal under Section 5A of the Act against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner closing the enquiry under Section 5 of the Act after lapse of 21 years and having set aside the order and having directed the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh enquiry and decision, petitioner, purchaser of subject land granted in the year 1974 in an extent of 2 acres 10 guntas in ...