Karnataka Court October 2012 Judgments
M/S. Balaji Silk House Represented by Its Proprietor K.C.S. Setty and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
(Prayer: These WP’s are filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare and strike down Sec.2(24) (xxi) of the Karnataka Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 1994, as violative of Article 301 of the Constitution of India.) H.G. Ramesh, J. Oral: 1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment to Entry 22 in Part ‘S’ of the Second Schedule of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, by Section 2(24) (xxi) of Karnataka Act No.18 of 1994. By the amendment, the earlier entries relating to Entry 22, was substituted by the following w.e.f. 01.04.1994: “22. Raw silk and silk yarn imported from outside the country Four Percent”. (Emphasis supplied) 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. The sole contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned amendment i...
Tag this Judgment!Sohil Ahamed Vs. R. Ramachandra
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
(Prayer: This Crl.P. is filed under S.482 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 31.8.2012 in C.C.No.1414/2009 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Shimoga on I.A. as found at Annexure –A.) 1. This criminal petition is directed against an order dated 31-8-2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Shimoga, in C.C.No.1414/2009, by which, an application filed by the accused under Ss.204 and 244 Cr.p.C., seeking deletion/discarding of the evidence of Sri Mahaveer – PW.2, on the ground that his name was not shown in the list of witnesses and permission of the Court for his examination was not obtained. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, brief facts of the case may be enumerated: The petitioner is being prosecuted for the offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (“the Act” for short). A private complaint under S.200 Cr.P.C., was filed by the respondent. His sworn statement was recorded and after noticing that, he has...
Tag this Judgment!Somashekar Vs. Srishail and Another
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order Dtd. 25.9.12 Annexure-M passed by the Court of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bijapur in O.S. No.178/2006 on I.A. No.37 and allow the same and etc.) 1. Application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 read with Section 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') seeking stay of the proceedings in O.S. No.178/2006 having been dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2012 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bijapur, petitioner who is the 1st defendant in the suit has filed this petition. 2. Petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in O.S. No.178/2006 filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking a decree for specific performance of the contract dated 06.04.1998 whereunder, the petitioner is stated to have agreed to sell the property in question in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. The suit is filed seeking a direction to defendant No.1 to...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Kamini Srinivasan Kurpad Vs. Ms. Malathi Rau and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
(These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.21472-497/2011 dated 30.08.2011.) N. Kumar, J. These appeals are preferred against the order of the Learned Single Judge who has quashed the sanction plan dated 16/9/2010 granted to the appellant by the Bangalore City Corporation for construction of office accommodation in her site. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the writ petition. 2. The subject-matter of this proceeding is a property bearing No.41/7, 15th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore – 03, measuring 1213 sq.mtrs. The 4th respondent made an application to the 3rd respondent for sanction of the plan to put up construction there on. A sanctioned plan was issued on 16/9/2010 for putting up construction of a multi-storied commercial complex comprising basement, ground and 3 upper floors and a terrace. On coming to know of the said sanction...
Tag this Judgment!E.T. Chandrappa and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka, Home Department ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order passed by their Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No.1415 and 1416/2007 and Application No.1954-55/07 dated 01/01/2009 produced at Annexure-A and declare the impugned Notification prescribing the prohibition on the basis of letter dated 02/02/2006 in respect for Ex-Servicemen as per Annexure as viod and direct the respondent to consider the petitioners case for recruitment to the post of Police Sub Inspectors in pursuance of Notification.) 1. Shri. S.M. Chandrashekar, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners at the outset submits that he would confine these writ petitions only insofar as it relates to Application Nos.1415/2007 and 1416/2007 passed by Tribunal. His submission is placed on record and these petitions are confined to only Application Nos.1415/2007 and 1416/2007. 2. Petitioners herein, questioning the correctness or otherwise...
Tag this Judgment!T. Yunis Vs. National Highways Authority of India and Others
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal is Filed U/s.4 of the High Court Act, 1961, praying to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order dated:29/08/2012 passed in W.P.No.63881/2012 and WP No.63913-15/2012 (Gm-Res) by the learned single judge of this Hon'ble Court and allow the Writ Appeal by allowing the Writ Petition No.63881/2012 and 63913-15/2012 as prayed for in Writ Petition.) 1. Heard Sri. S.N.Ashwathnarayana, learned counsel for the appellant and Government Advocate for R-2. 2. The appellant is challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP Nos.63881/2012 and 63913-15/2012 dated 29/8/2012, wherein, the petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 3. The facts leading to these appeals are as hereunder:- The appellant's land was notified for the benefit of the National Highway Authority under Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the National Highways Act, for widening the National Highway No.13 at Amaravathi village of Hospet taluk. Prel...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shyamalatha Singh, W/O Keshawakuvar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, CJ (Oral):1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Rightly, there is no opposition to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Additional document Annexure “Q” is also taken on record.2. Briefly staled the facts are that the petitioner/appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 25/07/1590 and as per letter dated 25/01/1991 against a permanent post in which a vacancy had arisen due to resignation. The said letter dated 25/01/1991 also approves the appointment with effect from the said date. As a consequence, unless the Teacher fails to discharge her duties, or if transferred to another Institution, fails to report for duty to that Institution, it is the responsibility of the State to pay salaries. The Commissioner, Public Instructions Department, Bangalore, has articulated this very position in the letter dated 30/09/2009 (Annexure "Q"), authored by the Under Secretary, Education Department, attached to the Commissioner, Public Instruct...
Tag this Judgment!Badrinath Ladda Vs. Smt. D. Vijaya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
(Prayer: This Crl.R.P. is filed under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment and dated 17.10.2006 on the file of the XXII Addl. CMM., and XXIV Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City in C.C.No.14587/2004 and as the order dated 25.6.2008 passed by the XXXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Crl.A.No.1789/2006.) 1. This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 25.6.2008 passed by the XXXVI Additional City Civil Sessions Judge at Bangalore, by which, the judgment in C.C.No.14587/2004 dated 17.10.2006 passed by the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, convicting and sentencing the accused to pay fine of Rs.80,00,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 12 months, for an offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (“the Act” for short), was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for decision. 2. Respondent herein is the original complainant and ...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Manish Gupta and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
(Prayer: This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated 27.11.2006 passed in MVC No.7158/04 on the file of Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Court of Small Causes, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-05), awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,37,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% P.A. from the date of petition till date of deposit.) Ajit J. Gunjal, J., 1. Both these appeals have been referred to us by an order of reference dated 19.06.2009. We presume that the matter is referred to us under Section 9 of the High Court Act and Rules. The order of reference would read as under: “ ……….I deem it appropriate to direct the registry, to place the record of these two appeals before my lord the Honorable Chief Justice, with a request to refer the matters to the Division Bench for resolving the conflict and to pronounce on the issue authoritatively………” 2. The vexed question in these t...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Micro Labs Ltd. Rep by Its Managing Director Dilip Surana Vs. the ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is Filed Under Article 226 Of the Constitution Of India Praying to Strike Down The Cutt Off Date “ 1.4.2007” Fixed By The Act No. 6/2007 By Bringing Into Force The Words “ Or On Such Maximum Retail Price Reduced By An Amount Equal To The Tax Payable” Into Section 4(4) Of the Kvat Act With Effect Only From 1.4.2007 Instead Of 2.10.2006 As Violative Of Article 14 Of The Constitution Of India Being Arbitrary And Discriminatory In Nature In So Far Petitioners Are Concerned And Etc.) H.G. Ramesh, J. Oral: In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the amendment to sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘the KVAT Act, for short ) by Karnataka Act No.6 of 2007 on the sole ground that in ought to have been given retrospective effect from 02.10.2006. The amendment Act came into force prospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2007. the amended sub-section (4) reads as follows: “(4) Nothwi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »