Karnataka Court January 2012 Judgments

M/S Ruchi Soya Industries Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent No.1 to produce relevant records pertaining to publication of the Notification No.38/2002 CUS. (N.T.) Dt. 13.06.2002 in the Official Gazette and to quash the said Notification as null and void, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and discriminatory etc.,) VIKRAMAJIT SEN, C.J. 1. These writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and have been pending for one decade. It contains several prayers, but the ones relevant for our purposes seek the issuance of a mandamus directing that the Notification No. 38/2002-Cus (N.T.) dated 13.06.2002 is not applicable to the imported goods consisting of 1647.414 metric tonnes of crude palmolein covered under Bill of Entry for Home Consumption dated 12.06.2002 (hereafter ‘subject shipment’); for an order declaring that the petitioner is not liable to pay any additional/di...

Dyamagouda Paravatgouda Patil Deceased by His Lrs and Another Vs. the ...

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

K. Sreedhar Rao, J 1. The land of appellant is acquired for the purpose of road widening between Hubli-Dharwad, near Navanagar area. The extent of land acquired is 32 guntas. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per gunta. The Reference Court has awarded Rs.70.50 per sq.ft., after giving deduction to an extent of 53% towards development charges. The appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The learned Government Advocate Sri.K.B. Adhyapak appearing for the respondents strenuously contend that the compensation awarded is sound and proper and it does not call for any enhancement. The deduction effected towards development charges is sound and proper. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant on the other hand submitted that the land is acquired for the purpose widening of the road. The Highway Authority would become owner of the land to its every inch in the land unlike in housing layout, no part of the land is diverte...

S. A. Chandrashekar, Son of Late Anjaneya Reddy. Vs. M. Hemavathi, Wif ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal by the appellant-husband is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 28/10/2006 passed in M.C.No.932/1996 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. 2. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. During the course of their submission, they have held a compromise petition dated 18.01.2012 under order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, duly signed by both the parties who are present before the Court and attested by there and submitted that, the instant appeal may be disposed of in terms of the said compromise petition. 3. We have asked both appellant and respondent as to whether they have agreed to the terms and conditions of the compromise petition. For that, they submitted that, they have agreed to the terms and conditions of the compromise petition. 4. The terms and conditions of the Compromise petition dated 18th January 2012 reads as under:-" 1. The marriage of the respondent with the Appellant was solemnized on 12.1.1995 with the consent of the elders of ...

Sridhar and Another Vs. N Revanna and Others

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and decree dated 21.11.2001 passed in O.S.No.11133/1995 by the XXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the suit filed by the Appellant for Declaration and permanent injunction.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellants were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. They were minors when they instituted the suit suing through their natural guardian, their paternal grandmother. 3. The case of the plaintiffs was as follows: That the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of their great-grandfather, Muniswamappa. He had, by three separate registered Gift Deeds dated 5.6.1957 executed in favour of his wife Akkayamma and two in favour of his grandson Revanna-defendant in the suit, gifted the suit properties. It is further stated that the properties were in the occupation of tenants. Muniswamappa and his wife Akkayamma had ex...

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Others Vs. M/S H.P. Global Soft Ltd ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: ITA No.811/2006 is filed U/s.260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 25-11-2005 passed in ITA No.572/Mum/2000 for the assessment year 1995-96, praying to formulate the substantial questions of law, allow the Appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No.572/Mum/2000 dated 25-11-2005 confirming the order of the appellate commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, special Range-15, Mumbai and etc.,) 1. These four appeals by the Revenue arise out of the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer in respect of the respondent-assessee, an Indian Company, for the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively. 2. All these four appeals involve common questions which had been noticed as under when the appeals were admitted for examination on 5.9.2007. 1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that in accordance with Section 80I(9) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to adduce...

islamia Institute of Technology Vs. Islamia Institute of Technology

Court: Karnataka

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, C.J. 1. This appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.11.2011 allowing Interlocutory Application No.10 of 2011 in W.P.No.37490/2010 and 40967-41032/2010 and directing the appellant to pay the wages last drawn by the Respondent-Workmen under Section -17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for the short ‘ID Act’), with effect from 30 days after publication of the Award impugned before him. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgment rendered by the High Court of Kerala in Commandant, Defence Security –vs- Secretary, 2001 (2) KLT 104. However, we are of the considered opinion that this decision is of no avail to the case proffered by the petitioner/appellant since the Division Bench was seized and placed in the position where the learned Single Judge who had allowed the writ petition filed by the Management in which the remonstration was that the writ petitioner was neither an industry no...

S. Chandrashekar Vs. State by Cbi, Bangalore

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal is by the accused who has been convicted by the Special Court in Special C.C.No.120 of 1998 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 473 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and consequent sentence imposed upon the appellant. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that, the appellant while working as Assistant Manager and Branch Manager of Peenya Branch of National Insurance Company Limited during the year 1990, cheated the National Insurance Company to the extent of Rs.6,000/- by falsely obtaining the personal accident insurance policy No.60220/9100191 in the name of H. Gangadhar for the period from 21-8-1989 to 20-8-1990 and the details of the proposal form were filled up and signature of the insured was also forged by the appellant and subsequently the appellant submitted a bogus claim intimation letter dated 25-6-1990 by falsely intimating that the insu...

G. Sathiyanarayanan Raj Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Deputy Commi ...

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.11/2009 (SC/ST) dated 09.08.2011.) VIKRAMAJIT SEN. C.J. (Oral): 1. By case No. LND.SCS.11/2001-02, the petitioner (respondent no. 12 before us) initiated proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner for restoration of land bearing Sy. No. 192 admeasuring 4-00 acres in Maragal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk. 2. The Assistant Commissioner noted that the transaction between the petitioner and the respondents violated section 4 (1) of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act’) Accordingly, he ordered the eviction of the occupants of lands in question under Section 5(1) of the said Act. The appellant before us appears to have purchased the land from Sri K.V. Anajanappa and K. Venktaramappa (respondents 1 and 2 before the Assistant Comm...

M/S. Sudarshan Stone Enterprises (P) Ltd., Rep by Its Managing Directo ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(1)KCCR662(DB); 2012(2)KantLJ1

(Prayer: This C.C.C. (Civil) U/secs-11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to punish the Accused for Disobeying the Order passed by the Hon’ble High court in WP No. 41082/2010 DTD. 18.1.2011 Vide Ann-A and Etc.,) 1. Complainant was writ petitioner in WP No.41082 of 2010 seeking for a direction to the State and the Director of Department of Mines and Geology to rectify the lease deed in writ jurisdiction dated 30.12.2000 in Q.L. No. 403 where under the predecessor of the writ petitioner had been granted a mining lease to quarry minor minerals in respect of an extent of 6 acres of non forest land in Sy. No.73 of Erubanahalli Village, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District. 2. It appears the petitioner got it transferred to its name from the original lessee in terms of an endorsement dated 20.4.2001, but had not taken any steps either for seeking the lease period changed from ten to twenty years or for any other purpose, but wa...

Shantawwa Vs. the Managing Director Rep. by Its Divisional Controller ...

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

(Prayer: This Appeal is filed under section 173(1) of M.V. Act 1988 against the judgment and award dated 07.07.2007 passed in MVC No. 1869/2001 on the file of the principal civil judge (Sr.DN.), and additional MACT, Belgaum, dismissing the cliam petition for compensaiton and seeking enhancement of compensation.) 1. [A-1/2007 is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. One sadashiv Udadar died in a road traffic accident. The occurrence of the accident, negligence of the drive of the bus and coverage of insurance are not in dispute. The deceased left behind two wives, two children and a mother as legal representatives. The second wife of the deceased and mother had filed the petition seeking compensation. The first wife is the second respondent before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to first wife, children and mother and rejected the claim of second wife for share in the compensation. Therefore, the second wife is in appeal seeking share in the compensat...