Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR3354; 1991(2)KarLJ342
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner who claims to be the owner of an extent of 1 acre 12 guntas comprised in S.No. 53/2 of Telkuni village, Aland Taluk has sought for quashing the Notification bearing No. DEV/LAQ/HS/412/83-84 dated 25-2-1984 - Annexure-A issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He has also sought for quashing the Notification bearing No. LAQ.HS/34-86-87 dated 19-5-1986 published in the Official Gazette of 22-5-1986 issued under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act.2. The land in question in all measures 1 acre 24 guntas. Out of that, petitioner claims to be the owner of 1 acre 12 guntas. The land is acquired for the purpose of grant of house sites to weaker sections of the people. The petitioner filed his objections on 25-6-1984.3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the object...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR4266
Rama Jois, Ag.C.J.1. In this Writ Appeal the following question of law arises for consideration;Whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be invoked for condoning the delay in making an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, beyond the period of 90 days prescribed in the said Section?2. The brief facts of the case are these:- Appellant was the owner of 36 cents of land in Karkala Casba village, Karkala Taluk. This land was acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1983. The appellant challenged the legality of the order before this Court in Writ Petition No. 7966/1986. That Writ Petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred Writ Appeal No. 524/1988. That Writ Appeal was dismissed on 29-3-1988. Thereafter, the appellant who was served with notice of award under Section 12(2) of the Act on 28-5-1986 itself filed an application under Section 18 of the La...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2012(4)CTC(IP)8; 2012(3)KCCR140(SN)
(Prayer: This O.S. filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC before the City Civil & Sessions Court, Bangalore District, Bangalore, registered as Original Suit No.7801/2003 and transferred to the High Court of Karnataka, praying to the pass a judgment and decree against the defendants as under: a) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and/or their licensee, nominees, agents, suppliers, dealers, consignees or any one acting directing or indirectly on their behalf from manufacturing and/or producing and/or selling of the products LIVOLIV-250 by infringing the plaintiffs protected patent rights under patent No.186857 of 20th April 1998 granted A method of preparing a Herbal Hepatoprotective and Anthiepatotoxic Composition in the market throughout India and etc.)1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, producing or selling of the product Livoliv-250 by infringing the plaintiffs protected Patent rights u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1997(75)FLR686]; ILR1998KAR2840; 1998(5)KarLJ237; (1999)IILLJ643Kant
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. The appellants while they were in the service of the first respondent as Assistant Security Supervisor in the Security Department of the Factory at Bangalore were issued charge sheets on 28th of July, 1984. They denied the allegations vide their reply dated 1-8-1984. The Deputy General Manager ordered an inquiry as a sequence of which the appellants were dismissed as per the order dated 21-1-1986. The 1st respondent-Management filed an application before the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay (hereinafter called the Tribunal) under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) seeking approval for the action taken against the appellants. The application was rejected vide order dated 1-9-1987 on the ground that one month's back wageshad not been tendered by the management as mandated under the provisions of the Act, the action was illegal. After the rejection of the application of the management, the appellants prayed for being taken back...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2001KAR95; 2000(6)KarLJ526
ORDER1. The common grievance of the petitioners in all these petitions relates to the alleged improper preparation of the electoral rolls for their respective constituencies. Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 5450 and 5524 of 2000 are aggrieved by the inclusion of 29 voters in the voters list of the two Grama Panchayat constituencies for which they have filed their nomination papers. Besides a certiorari for quashing the list, they have prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent to prepare a fresh list in accordance with law. Petitioner in W.P. No. 5927 of 2000 is also a candidate, who is similarly aggrieved of the preparation of the electoral roll for his constituency. Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 5930 to 5934 of 2000 are aggrieved of the exclusion of their names from the voters list for the Hunashikatti Grama Panchayat. Preparation of the voters list for Suryanakanahalli of Hassan District is assailed in W.P. No. 5992 of 2000 on the ground that respondents 3 to 15 in the said petition are min...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2010Kant27; ILR2009KAR3699; 2009(6)KarLJ606; 2009(4)KCCRSN242; 2009AIRKarR218.
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Thin writ petition is filed seeking to challenge the constitutional validity of the Proviso to Section 6(1)(c) of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 (Act 39 of 2005).2. The background to the petition is ay follows:The petitioner aged about 36 is the unmarried daughter of One Doddanunaiah Reddy and they are Hindus. The lather, Duddarmaiah Reddy is alive. The petitioner has filed a civil suit in OS.S.3104/2007 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore. The suit is for partition and separate possession of joint family properties. The suit is pending as on dale. The plaintiff has called in question certain sale deeds executed in respect of the suit properties as not binding on her.Having regard to the Proviso to Section 6(1)(c) of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act under Act 39 of 2005, the trial court was inclined to dismiss the suit as not maintainable. It was at that stage that the present writ petition is filed questioning the constitutional validity of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008(4)AIRKarR455; AIR2008NOC2348; 2008AIHC301(Kar)
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and awards dated 30/11/2002 passed in LAC Nos. 263/1996, 264/1996, 265/1996, 266/1996, 267/1996, 171/1999, 257/1999 by the II Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') fixing the market value at Rs. 3/- Lakhs per acre. The owners-claimants in M.F.A Nos. 2237/03, 2244/03, 2246/03, 2266/03, 2269/03 are tucking for entrancement of market value at Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre whereas the owners-claimants in M.F.A. No. 2343/03 and in M.F.A. No. 2245/03 are seeking enhancement of Rs. 4,70,000/- and Rs. 6,22,000/- per acre respectively over and above awarded by the Reference Court by re-determining the correct market value of their acquired land.2. The Spl.LAO also filed Appeals questioning the market value fixed by the Reference Court in all the above LAC references contending that the same is on the higher aide and seeks to set aside the same. Both the parties having aggr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2009]20STT314
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioners are all persons who are dealers as the expression occurs in Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short, 'the Act'] and also dealers who are registered under Section 22 of the Act.2. Petitioners have a common grievance and complaint against the validity of the penalty orders, which penalty has been imposed on the petitioners under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Act. Such penalty is levied on the petitioners either for their failure to file returns of the turnover, which is a periodic return to be filed every month, in terms of Section 35 of the Act or for their failure to have paid the tax, which they have collected and which had become payable within the permitted time, as stipulated in Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Act.3. Writ petitioners are complaining that the quantum of penalty levied on them under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Act, has assumed an oppre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2009)25VST101(Karn); 2009(3)KCCRSN97; 2009(5)AIRKarR167; AIR2009NOC2987
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioners are dealers assessable to tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short 'the Act']. The Act is a piece of legislation providing for levy of tax on 'sale or purchase of goods', an expression as it occurs in Sub-article 29A of Article 366 of the Constitution of India.2. Under this Act, persons having transaction in the nature of 'sale or purchase of goods' who are dealers and are required to be registered themselves as 'dealers' which enables them to collect tax on sale of goods at the rate as provided for under the provisions of the Act and pass it on to the State. The registered dealers act as agents for the State in gathering and remitting the tax. Such dealers are required to maintain the details of the sales effected by them, amount of tax collected from their customers, file monthly returns in the prescribed form and pay the tax so collected to the state.3. The Act has a scheme where under the goods o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(6)KarLJ1
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, who is a borrower of certain amount from the fourth respondent Corporation Bank. The nature of the transaction between the Bank and the petitioner appears to include the loan sanctioned by the Bank in favour of the petitioner after obtaining title deeds of the properties o the petitioner as deposits by way of security.2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp (Amendment) Act, 2006 as amended by Karnataka Act No. 7 of 2006 which has come into effect from 1-4-2006 particularly the amendment in terms of Section 3 of the Amending Act, amending the provisions of Article 6 in Schedule to the Act by adding an explanation which reads as under:3. Amendment of the Schedule.--(1) in Article 6, in Clause (1), in Sub-clause (b), in column (3), the following explanation shall be inserted, namely.--Explanation.--For the purpose of Clause (1), notwithstanding any...
Tag this Judgment!