Karnataka Court June 2012 Judgments

Kalyanamma Vs. the Chief Personal Manager.

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This WA is filed under Sec.4 of The Karnataka High Court Act to set aside the order passed in WP No.13107/2011 (S-KSRTC) dated 16.6.2011.)1. The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge in WP No.13107/2011 present appeal is filed. Appellant is the widow of one Ramaiah who was working as a driver under respondent-corporation. On the ground that he was unauthorized absent, he was terminated from service w.e.f. 28.5.1999. It appears, Ramaiah was unwell, therefore he could not attend the office. Since his illness was continued, he died on 9.7.2000. Thereafter appellant raised a dispute challenging the order of dismissal. Labour Court after holding an enquiry held that the dismissal was bad in law and his L.Rs. are entitled for 50% back-wages from the date of dismissal till his death along with other service benefits.2. Award of the Labour Court was questioned by the Corporation by filing a writ petition in WP No.9959/2006 which petition came to be d...

M.M. Udyog. Vs. the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: These appeals filed U/s. 66(1) of the Value Added Tax Act, 2003 against the revision order dated 31.10.2009 passed in ZAC-1/DVO-IV/SMR-67/09-10 on the file of the Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-I, Bangalore, confirming the proposal made at para 5 in notice under Sec.64(1), setting aside the appeal order and accordingly restored the orders passed by audit officer under Sec.39(1) Sec.72(2) and Sec.36 and concluding the revisional proceedings and etc.)D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.1. These appeals under section 66 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short the Act) are by the dealer who was amongst other goods buying and selling what is known as artificial flower petals apart from acrylic yarn, M.F. Yarn, thread, paper bags.2. The dealer is in appeal questioning the correctness of the order dated 31.10.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone I, Bangalore, exercising his suo motu revisional powers under section 64 of the Act and sett...

State by Kudremukh Police, Chickmagalur District. Vs. Nagesha, Chickma ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This CRL.A. filed u/s 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. by the State P.R. for the State praying that this Honble court maybe pleased to grant leave to file an appeal against the judgment dt: 26.10.2006 in S.C.No.133/2005 on the file of the Prl. Sessions Judge Chikmagalur Acquitting the respondents/accused for the offence P/U/S 302 and 201 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.)DILIP B. BHOSALE J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 26th Oct. 2006 rendered by Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, acquitting both the accused-respondents who were charged and tried for the offences punishable under sections 302 read with section 34 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. It was on the allegations that the accused committed murder of Seshappagowda, assaulting him with wooden club on his head and concealed his body, tied with 2 stones, in the river with an intention of screening themselves from legal action.2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated is that the decease...

The Deputy Commissioner Raichur, Through the Taluka Social Welfare Off ...

Court: Karnataka Gulbarga

(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash order dated 09-09-2009 passed on I.A.VI In R.A.No.35/2007 by the Fast Track Court-I at Raichur vide Annexure-A. And consequently allow I.A. filed u/o 41 Rule 27 CPC r/w 151 of CPC and direct the first appellate court to receive the documents produced by the petitioners/defendants. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the defendants in O.S.No.135/2002 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Raichur and the appellants in R.A.35/2007 on the file of the Fast Track Court I (FTC for short), Raichur, questioning an order dated 09.09.2009 passed on I.A.VI. By that order, FTC rejected I.A. VI, filed by the appellants/petitioners herein, seeking permission for production of documents, under O 41 R 27 of CPC, in pending first appeal, on the ground that (i) the original sale deed was not produced and only certified copy was produced; (ii) though the suit was pending from 12.07.2002, the a...

Monappa Naika, Puttur. Vs. Land Tribunal, Puttur by Its Chairman D K a ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash the order dated 6.9.2004-annexure A by the Land Tribunal, Puttur.)Land Tribunal, Puttur by order dated 6.9.2004-annexure A, has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that properties in question in various survey numbers of Survey Village of Puttur are mortgage properties and mortgage extended from 1969 for a period of eight years i.e. till 1977 and that the applicant failed to prove that he was in possession as on 1.3.1974.Heard the counsel representing the parties.As it transpires, 3rd respondent Saraswathi and her mother Honnamma are the mortgagors and one Muthappa Poojary is the mortgagee to whom there was a mortgage for the period 1969 to 1976 by way of usufructory mortgage as per the mortgage deed. It appears, after the mortgage, as per the contention of the petitioner herein, mortgagee has created chalgeni tenancy in his favour as such, by virtue of the same, he continued in posses...

Krishnappa, Bangalore. Vs. K.N. Sridevi, Bangalore.

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the impugned order dated 25.3.2011 in O.S.No.5986/2010 on the file of the 30th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, etc.)1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.3.2011 in O.S.No.5986/2010 on the file of the 30th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore city, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC for an order of attachment before judgment attaching the suit schedule property has been dismissed.2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit and the respondent is the defendant. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranking before the trial Court. The plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.95,20,000/- together with future interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. In the suit, the plai...

A. Kowsalya Bai and ors Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to declare that S.206AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unconstitutional, etc.)These petitions have been filed seeking for a declaration that S.206 AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unconstitutional and for costs.It is stated, petitioners are small investors. For depositing their savings out of their meager income, they approached respondents 3 and 4, for earning better interest/returns. They do not have any source of income other than their investment. It is also stated specifically, they do not have income exceeding the maximum taxable limit as per S.139 A of the Act. Petitioners even filed Form 15 G as required under S.197 A of the Act to enable the 3rd and 4th respondents not to deduct tax at source as per S.193 of the Act.According to the petitioners, the 3rd and 4th respondents have informed the petitioners that even Form 15 G filed by them cannot be accepted for the purpose of exemption from deduction...

Smt Gowradevi S. Orekondy and Others Vs. K. B. Rudrappa and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR2416

(Prayer: These WPs are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, praying to set-aside the impugned order dated 18.2.2012 passed by the learned 1st Addl. District and sessions Judge, Devangere, in O.S.No.230/2009 (old No.430/2000 on I.A.No.43 and 44 vide Annexure P and etc.)H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):1. In these two Writ petitions, defendant Nos.9 to 13 have challenged the common order dated 18.02.2012 passed by the trial Court in the suit in O.S.No.230/2009 (old No.430/2000) allowing I.A.Nos.43 and 44 filed by the plaintiffs. I.A.No.43 was filed under VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the CPC’ for short) seeking permission to amend the plaint. I.A.No.44 was filed under Order I rule 10 of the CPC seeking permission to impaled M/s. K.B. Rudrappa and Co., a registered Partnership Firm as plaintiff No. 7 in the suit.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and pursued the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted th...

Smt A. Kowsalya Bai and Others Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR2471

(Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to declare that S.206AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unconstitutional, etc.)These petitions have been filed seeking for a declaration that S.206 AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unconstitutional and for costs.It is stated, petitioners are small investors. For depositing their savings out of their meager income, they approached respondents 3 and 4, for earning better interest/returns. They do not have any source of income other than their investment. It is also stated specifically, they do not have income exceeding the maximum taxable limit as per S.139 A of the Act. Petitioners even filed Form 15 G as required under S.197 A of the Act to enable the 3rd and 4th respondents not to deduct tax at source as per S.193 of the Act.According to the petitioners, the 3rd and 4th respondents have informed the petitioners that even Form 15 G filed by them cannot be accepted for the purpose of exemption from deduction...

Nagesh Devadiga Alias Nagesh and ors. Vs. the State Rep by the Police ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR2152

(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C praying to quash the order dated: 03.09.2009 passed by the I Addl. Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore in S.C.No.81/2009, rejecting the memo filed by the accused persons/petitioners herein and requiring the accused to file fresh bail application and also demanding fresh bail bonds and sureties.)1. The petitioners are accused in Sessions Case No.81/2009 pending on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 325, 326, 307, 302 r/w. 34 IPC. Initially, after investigation for the aforesaid offences, a charge-sheet came to be filed by the Investigating Agency before the JMFC [II Court], Mangalore, in C.C.No.3115/2009. During the investigation, the petitioners had applied for bail before the Sessions Court and the Fast Track Court-I at Mangalore had granted bail vide its Order dated 9th February, 2009 in Crl.Misc.No.62/2009. In pursuance of the bail Order, the...