Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(5)KarLJ11
ORDERManjula Chellur, J.1. The contentions of the parties in nutshell are as under:2. The writ petitioner claims to be the legal representative of original owner Mr. Munivenkatappa (her father-in-law). The present Writ Petition is filed by her, being aggrieved by the notification dated 22.3.2005 at Annexure - K made by the 1st respondent State in No. Na.Aa.Ee.30 Bim. Bhu.Swa.2004.Father-in-law of the present petitioner was the owner of land bearing Sy. Nos. 50, 51 & 52 totally measuring 21 acres and 39 guntas situate at Tavarakere village of Begur Hobli. In this Writ Petition only survey number 50 measuring 6 acres 20 guntas is the subject matter (hereinafter referred to as 'the land'). Petitioner is the wife of one of the sons of Munivenkatappa by name Bheemananna @ Subbanna who died on 24.1.2005.The State Government in exercise of its eminent domain power proceeded to acquire the land in question along with other lands for a public purpose, i.e. formation of Byrasandra Tavarakere Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2008]299ITR335(KAR); [2008]299ITR335(Karn)
H.L. Dattu, J.1. These appeals arise under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Act'). In these appeals, we are concerned with the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short), Bangalore Bench-B, in W.T.A. Nos. 25 of 1999 and 13 of 1998 for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the Revenue's appeals and has confirmed the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The assessee being aggrieved by the order so passed by the Tribunal is before us in these appeals.2. In these appeals, the assessee has raised the following substantial questions law. They read as under:(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the inclusion of the value of the land in the net wealth of the appellant ?(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstanc...
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 : 2008(5)KarLJ18; ILR2008(1)Kar606; 2008(2)KCCR838; 2008(2)AIRKarR537
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the notification at Annexure 'E' dated 19.7.2007 issued by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 whereby tenders have been invited for lease of Ratbag Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamitha, Raibag, Belgaum District, under lease, rehabilitated, operate and transfer (for short 'LROT') basis for a period of 30 (thirty) years starting from the year 2007-08 to 2036-37. The petitioners have also challenged the proceedings of the State Government at Annexure 'G' dated 5.8.2006 whereby the State Government has decided to revive the aforesaid sugar factory by way of lease on the model of Srirama Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Limited and the Government Order at Annexure 'H' dated 16.1.2007 deciding to lease the aforesaid sugar factory for a period of 30 years on LROT basis.2. The petitioners are the shareholders and members of the 4th respondent-Raibag Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamitha, Ratbag. Belgaum District ('for short 's...
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!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1996KAR3136; 1996(7)KarLJ426
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The National Law School of India University, Bangalore, in its publication 'March of the Law, 1994', while reviewing legal developments in India in the field of Education Law, has noticed that '1992-93 will go down in the history of constitutional litigation on education. The debate that started with 'PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA, : (1984)IILLJ481SC , on the issue of policy on education, specially relating to professional education, dictates several dimensions and reached UNNIKRISHNAN v. STATE OF AP, : [1993]1SCR594 , via MOHINI JAIN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, : [1992]3SCR658 . The Parliament also took immediate notice of the said developments and appropriately responded by enacting Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993 and the Dentist (Amendment) Act, 1993. But all in vain. The mischief sought to be remedied could still found their ways to survive with higher vigour openly declaring 'we are unconquerable. We survive with ten heads like Ravana.' The enquiri...
Tag this Judgment!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 : 2007(1)KarLJ459; 2007(1)KCCR90; 2007(1)AIRKarR346; AIR2007NOC312
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. IA-III for impleading is filed by a person claiming as legal heirs of one A B V Gowda and which has been directed to be listed along with the appeals at the time of final hearing, is rejected as unnecessary.2. These two appeals are by the defendants in OS 10886 of 1995 and 10887 of 1995, on the file of XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, directed against the common judgment and decrees in the two suits, being aggrieved by the decrees for possession and damages in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule properties in the said suits.3. The common appellants-defendants in these appeals are the Chief Secretary Posts & Telegraphs, Telecommunications, Government of India, New Delhi and the Divisional Engineer, Bangalore Telephones, Bangalore.4. The suits for recovery of possession, for arrears of rent and future damages was on the premise that the plaintiff had determined the tenancy by notices dated 6-6-1995 [ExP3 and 4] issued under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1979(38)FLR158]; (1979)ILLJ192Kant
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the management of the Central Machine Tool Institute. Bangalore, the petitioner, is questioning the legality of the registration of their employees' association as a trade union under the provisions of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, on the grounds that the institute is purely a research and development organisation without any profit motive and therefore, even if it can be regarded as 'industry' within the meaning of that word as defined in the , it is not a trade or industry for purposes of Trade Unions Act and consequently the registration of the association of the employees of the institute under the Trade Unions Act by the 1st respondent-Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions is without authority of law. 2. Case of the petitioner : The petitioner is this writ petition is the management of the Central Machine Tool Institute situate in Bangalore. It is society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. According to the objects set ou...
Tag this Judgment!