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 : AIR2008Kant70; 2008(126)ECC112; 2008(152)LC112(Karnataka); 2008(226)ELT325(Kar); ILR2008KAR2598; 2008(5)KarLJ81; 2008[12]STR671; [2009]19STT467
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The petitioner is the Central Excise and Customs Department, Hubli represented by its Assistant Commissioner of Central Excess, seeking to question the action of the second respondent in bringing to sale, the properties belonging to the first respondent in recovery of amounts due from the first respondent. The petitioner claims priority in such recovery.2. The brief facts as are necessary for consideration of the present writ petition are, that the first respondent is an assessee within the jurisdiction of the petitioner. It transpires that the first respondent is due to the petitioner in a sum of Rs. 7,83,23,235/- by way of central excise duty and penalty alongwith interest in terms of on Adjudication Order No. 2/2006, dated 1.3.2006. Pursuant to proceedings initiated for clandestine removal of the manufactured goods, it transpires that there was a Detention Order issued by the Authorised Officer as on 9.11.2006 for recovery of the said arrears and a Notice ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008(6)KarLJ643; 2008(3)KCCR1842; 2008(5)AIRKarR230; AIR2008NOC2535
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is to get over the adverse order the legal heirs of judgment debtor suffered at the hands of the executing court in their effort to avoid execution of award passed by the arbitrator under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, the Act), as the learned judge of the executing court under the impugned order held that the execution petition was not barred by limitation as contended by the judgment debtor.2. The petitioners, who are legal heirs of the original judgment debtor, who was a member of the decree holder-society and it appears had borrowed some amount for agricultural operations, having foiled to pay the amount, the society raised a dispute and the matter being referred to arbitrator by the registrar, got an award in its favour in CEP 2/1974-75 dated 31-8-1974.3. The judgment debtor, it appears, had preferred an appeal against this award ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(5)KarLJ9
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed by M/s. Flemingo Duty-free Shops Pvt., Ltd. a Company incorporated in this year 2004 seeking for issuance of declaratory relief to declare that clause 3.2 of the Invitation for Expression of Interest (hereinafter in short referred to as 'E.O.I') issued by the third respondent which is Bangalore International Airport Limited (hereinafter in short referred to as BIAL'), in which it has sought to restrict issuance of tender documents and consideration of bids only from five persons is arbitrary and discriminatory, that the evaluation of the E.O.I by respondents 3 & 4 with respect to Retail and Duty-Free shop to be established in the International Departure and Arrival Duty-free at the New BIAL, Devanahally is arbitrary, discriminatory and further directions to declare the action of the respondents 3 & 4 in short-listing only respondents 5 to 9 for issuance of tender documents and excluding the petitioner from the said list and decision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner is an employee of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'KPTCL' for brevity) and is said to be the Executive Director of the KPTCL Employees Co-operative Society. Certain members of the Society are said to have filed a complaint before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies alleging acts of omission and commission by the petitioner, relating to the affairs of the society - in the formation of residential layouts in and around the city of Bangalore. The Registrar, in turn, had ordered an enquiry as on 28.10.2006 under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (Hereinafter called the 'KCS Act', for brevity), a Deputy Registrar was appointed as the enquiry officer. After a detailed enquiry a report was submitted absolving the petitioner and other office-bearers of any irregularity.Complaints were also said to hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERAravind Kumar, J.1. Both these petitions are filed seeking reliefs claiming interalia therein namely the petitioner in W.P.4653/2007 i.e., Arasikere Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'bank' for the sake of brevity ) calling in question the order dated 31-7-2006 which is at Annexure 'Q' passed by the Common Cadre Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'CCC' for the sake of brevity) and the order dated 13-12-2006 which is at Annexure 'S' passed by the CCC directing the Bank to pay salary to 3rd respondent for the period 23-4-1997 to 10-10-1997 and the order directing the bank to pay the said amount immediately.2. W.P. No. 19958/2007 is filed by the employee against the CCC and the District Manager, Karnataka State Agricultural and Rural Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'federal society' for the sake of brevity) seeking relief of a mandamus to the respondents to pay the arrears of salary in accordan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act') dated 25.9.1986, awards dated 28.1.1989 and 31.1.1989 and notification under Section 16(2) of the Act dated 12/15.4.1991 and 4/5.11.1992 and for other reliefs2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of bits of lands in different survey numbers situated at Kothihosahalli village and Kodigehalli village and Byatarayanapura village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. For the benefit of fourth respondent - Housing Co-operative society the Government of Karnataka issued a preliminary notification on 4.1.1985 proposing to acquire the lands belonging to the petitioners and others.Subsequently on 25.9.1986 the final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act came to be published. Thereafter, the second respondent passed an award on 3.12.1988 and the same came to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These Writ Appeals filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.21876-87/2010 dated 07.01.2011.) 1. In all these appeals, the question raised relates to the competence of the State to levy Sales Tax/VAT on telecommunication service, interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions and upholding the rule of law. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed off by this common order. 2. For the purpose of clarity, the facts pleaded by appellants/petitioners in each of these cases are set out in brief. FACTUAL MATRIX W.A.Nos.654/2011, 817-828/2011, 789/2011, 790/2011, 805-816/2011, 792-803/2011, 791/2011 and 829-840/2011. 3. The appellant in all these appeals – M/s. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short herein after referred to as the ‘BSNL’) is wholly owned Government of India undertaking providing all types of telecom services in the country except the met...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. These batch of appeals are preferred by the employers challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge who set aside the notification dated 1.8.2001 by which the notification issued under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) came to be rescinded and also the declaration granted by the learned single Judge that statutory canteens employees are to be regularized by the respective managements according to the terms of his order and the other consequential reliefs which he has granted. 2. As the subject matter of all these appeals and the questions raised and to be considered are one and the same, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this order. 3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original writ proceedings. For proper appreciation of the legal issues which arise for consideration in these proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. All these Writ Petitions are listed before this Bench by a Special Order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice for decision. The subject matter of all these petitions is identical though one of the writ petition is by way of public interest litigation. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in W.P.No. 66920/2010 herein are the member shareholders of the Doodhganga Krishna Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Chikkodi. It is a Co-operative sugar factory registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. It was established to cater to the needs of the sugarcane farmers in and around Chikkodi, Raibagh and Athani Taluk in Belgaum District. Later it was converted into a Multi-State Co-operative Society under the Karnataka Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, by extending its area of operation to more than one State (Karnataka and Maharashtra) Earlier, they were having crushing capacity of 2500 TCD...
Tag this Judgment!