Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR2682; 2004(3)KarLJ122
Rangavittalachar, J.1. The two residents of Dollar Scheme Layout in Madiwala Bangalore have filed these two Writ Petitions for a writ of mandamus to, the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Bangalore Development Authority for revoking the sanctioned plan and for a direction to demolish the college building constructed in the two sites by the 3rd respondent herein and for quashing of the special permission granted by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA for short) to establish a college.2. They contend in the petition that the Dollar Scheme Layout in Madiwala is a residential colony notified as such by the BDA in its Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP for short). They have constructed two residential houses in premises No. 4 and 5A at 36th Main, II Cross, BTM I Stage. The adjacent two sites bearing No. 2 and 3 which were allotted by the BDA purely for purposes of constructing residential houses by the allottees, was purchased by 3rd respondent herein from the allottees. Subsequently, h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2004]136STC519(Kar)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The appellant in this appeal was the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4971 of 1999 (Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [2000] 117 STC 437) before this Court. The learned single Judge in the impugned order rejected the writ petition.2. Facts in brief, which have led to the filing of this appeal, are as hereunder :The appellant is a public limited company and owns a Tug (Towing vessel) by name 'Kumari Tarini' (hereinafter referred to as 'the tug'). The appellant entered into a charter party agreement with New Mangalore Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the NMPT') on January 8, 1998, wherein it was agreed to make available the services of the said tug for the purposes mentioned in the said agreement along with the master and other personnel of the appellant to the NMPT for a period of six months from the date of commencement of service. A copy of the said agreement was produced as annexure A to the writ petition. The 2nd respondent, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR2637
ORDERMohan Shanthanagoudar, J. 1. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 01.02.2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C Somwarpet in crime No. 156 of 2002, whereby the Magistrate has allowed the application dated 26.11.2002 filed by the Investigation Officer seeking direction to the medical officer to conduct blood test, of the accused by collecting sample of blood from him in order to ascertain as to whether the accused has caused pregnancy of the complainant or not, the accused has come forward with the present petition .2. The brief facts of the case giving raise to the present petition are that :Crime No. 156/2002 is registered in Somwarpet police station on the basis of the complaint lodged by one G.S. Poornima on 15.11.2002 for the offences punishable Under Section 313, 417, 506 I.P.C. It is alleged in the said complaint that the accused-petitioner herein was in love with the complainant Poornima, assuring the complainant that he would marry her and made her to believe so, had illici...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(3)KarLJ584
ORDERMohan Shanthanagoudar, J.1. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 1-2-2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Somwarpet in Crime No. 156 of 2002, whereby the Magistrate has allowed the application dated 26-11-2002 filed fey the Investigation Officer seeking direction to the medical officer to conduct blood test of the accused by collecting sample of blood from him in order to ascertain as to whether the accused has caused pregnancy of the complainant or not, the accused has come forward with the present petition.2. The brief facts of the case giving raise to the present petition are that:Crime No. 156 of 2002 is registered in Somwarpet Police Station on the basis of the complaint lodged by one G.S. Poornima on 15-11-2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 313, 417 and 506 of the IPC. It is alleged in the said complaint that the accused-petitioner herein was in love with the complainant-Poornima; assuring the complainant that he would marry her and ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR4206; 2004(6)KarLJ1
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.1. Karnataka Lorry Malikara Okkuta (R) and some registered owners of the lorries have filed these petitions on 20.12.2002 praying to quash the Government Order dated 13.11.2002 and to direct the State Government to constitute an expert Committee to go into the question of controlling pollution by alternate methods of using CNG fuel or any other clean fuel, by replacement of worn out parts of engine etc.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned notification, completely banning the entry of vehicles which are aged more than 15 years from the outer ring Road even in a phased manner, would affect the fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also would not fall within the meaning of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. It is stated that the Government has misinterpreted the order passed by the Supreme Court in M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA, W.P.No. 13029/1985; : [2001...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(6)KarLJ194
B. Padmaraj, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned Government Advocate for the appellants and the learned Counsels for the respondent, at a considerable length and carefully perused the relevant case papers, including the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, in the light of the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the Rules framed thereunder and also the precedents.2. This is a writ appeal filed by the appellant-State and its authorities against an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Thirumala Distilleries, Tumkur v. State of Karnataka and Ors., : ILR2002KAR2889 , whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent-distillery has been allowed and the orders made by the appellants 2 and 3 at Annexures-J and G to the writ petition, have been set aside or quashed and an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- deposited, if any by the respondent-distillery with the appellant 3 in compliance with the interim order dated 7-6-2000 has been ordered to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR3194; 2005(6)KarLJ410
ORDERAbdul Nazeer, J.1. Dr. K.S. Sunitha is the petitioner in WP No. 14437/2005 and Dr. A. Padmaja is the petitioner in WP No. 14438/2005. Both the petitioners are holders of MBBS Degree and they were appointed as Medical Officers by an order dated 25.7.1997 issued by the Government of Karnataka pursuant to selection made by the Karnataka Public Service Commission. They had joined the services of the State on 13.8.1997 and 14.8.1997 respectively. The petitioners participated in the Post-Graduate Entrance Test 2005 held on 6.2.2005. Dr. K.S. Sunitha secured 139 marks in the Entrance Test out of 200 marks while Dr. A. Padmaja secured 118 marks out of 200. Both of them appeared for the counselling on 21.4.2005. Dr. K.S. Sunitha was allotted Post-Graduate seat in MS. OBG though she wanted a seat in MD. Radiology. Dr. A. Padmaja secured a seat for the study of MD. Anesthesiology though her first choice was MS. OBG2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent-authorities have made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2005)197CTR(Kar)37; [2005]278ITR206(KAR); [2005]278ITR206(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner is an assessee under the IT Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). This is a peculiar case where the petitioner-assesses is challenging the enforcement of demand made at Annex.-H dt. 5th Dec., 2002, wherein it is indicated that on verification of the records by the authorities under the Act, it was found that income-tax arrears was due from the petitioner for the period as indicated therein, and the petitioner-assesses was called upon to make payment of the amount within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which coercive recovery proceedings would be initiated against the petitioner. The amounts mentioned in Annex.-H are as follows : Assessment year Amount (in Rupees) 1997-98 10,382 1998-99 61,111 1999-2000 2,01,176 2000-01 2,87,852 2001-02 1,09,6782. The assessee had responded to the notice, pointing out that the demands for the years 1999-2000 to 2001-02 were not correct or justified; that the said demand included even the amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2006)203CTR(Kar)381; [2006]286ITR182(KAR); [2006]286ITR182(Karn)
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These two writ petitions are disposed of by this common order as they are involved common question of law.2. Writ Petition No. 5334/2003 is filed challenging the demand made by the respondent as per Annexure-C in so far as it relates to the demand pertaining to levying of interest under Section 234-B and 234-C of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') aggregating to Rs. 71,12,704/- for the assessment year 2001-02 for the alleged default in payment of advance tax and Writ Petition No. 39460/2003 is filed challenging the intimation Annexure-C in so far as it demands the interest payable under Section 234-B and 234-C of the Act aggregating to Rs. 45,49,720/- for the assessment year 2002-03 for the alleged default in payment of advance tax.3. It is the contention of the petitioner which is common in both the petitions that a Division Bench of this Court has held that there is no obligation to pay advance tax in excess of assessment corresponding to provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2008Kant77; ILR2008KAR2034; ILR2008(2)Kar2034; 2008(5)KLJ327; 2008(1)KCCR568; 2008(2)AIRKarR547; AIR2008Kar77; 2008AIHC2081(Kar)(DB)
R. Gopalakrishna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 21-04-2002 passed by the learned XVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore dismissing the suit In O.S. No. 2567/2000.2. The facts necessary for consideration of the appeal are as follows:The plaintiff/appellant has filed a suit in O.S. No. 2567/2000 praying for following reliefs:(a) Declaring that the liability of the plaintiff as issued early by mortgage of the suit schedule property to as extinguished by operation of law;(b) Consequential mandatory in function directing the defendants to return the documents deposited as per the list dated 09-09-1995;(c) Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding against the suit schedule property as a property mortgaged to discharge the debt due from M/s Sriram Borewells, Tarikere.(d) to award costs;(e) grant such other reliefs as deemed just and necessary In the facts and circumstances of the case.3. As p...
Tag this Judgment!