Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2006Raj73; RLW2005(4)Raj2869
V.K. Bali, J.1. Challenge in the present bunch of petitions bearing numbers 2613/2005, 2091/2005 and 2372/2005 is to the vires and constitutional validity of Section 26(b) of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' of 1959) as inserted by Rajasthan Act No. 22 of 2000 in Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. Provisions contained in Section 26(b) of the Act of 1959 reproduced below have been challenged on the ground of discrimination in as much as, similar provision has not made by the Legislature in respect of election to public offices in institutions of Local Self Government or in the State Legislature and Parliament. It is on that count alone that the concerned provision under challenge has been styled to be arbitrary and thus, impermissible in view of the provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.'26. General qualification for Members--A person, notwithstanding that he is otherwise qualified, shall be disqualified for being chose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005CriLJ4619; ILR2005KAR5213; 2006(6)KarLJ440
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioner being accused No. 1 in C.C. No.5/2005 (P.C.No. 18/04) pending on the file of Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,) & JMFC, Hospet, has sought for quashing the proceedings. The trail Court has issued process against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 193 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.2. The complaint discloses that the accused has given a false affidavit before the Executive Officer of Town Panchayat and got her name mutated to the exclusion of the complainant. On coming to know of the said fact, the private complaint is lodged, alleging the aforesaid offences.3. The principle contention raised by the petitioner is that the Court should not have taken cognizance of the offence except on the complaint in writing by the authority concerned. According to the petitioner, as the offence is committed before the Executive Officer of Town Panchayat, the said officer should lodge the complaint. In other words, the Court should not have take...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR5985; 2006(5)KarLJ123
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner is a Partnership firm. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') allotted 9992 sq.mtrs in Plot No. 1 (A) in Sy. Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of Veerasandra Industrial Area for establishing a factory. Lease-cum-Sale agreement as per Annexure- A dated 25-6-1983 was executed in favour of the petitioner for a period of 11 years commencing from 25-2-1983. Possession Certificate as per Annexure-B dated 26/28-2-1983 was also issued. Clause 2(n) (ii) of the agreement reads as under:'(n). To use the demised premises only for the purpose of Porclain, L.T. Insulators, Sanitary wares and polishing of granite stones and light fabric factory/industry and not to use the demised premises or any part thereof for any other purpose nor for the purpose of any factory which may be obnoxious, or offensive by reason of emission of odour, liquid, 'fluvia' dust, smoke gas noise, vibrations or fire hazards.(ii) To commence the civil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : III(2006)ACC260; AIR2006Kant40; 2006(2)KarLJ611
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The deceased in MVC 1535/96 is one Kumar Snehal alias Vishal Navinchandra Patel, minor boy aged about 11 years. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 304176.83 paise with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation. This Court in Smt. Puttamma v. D.V. Krishnappa reported in ILR 1999 Kar SN. No. 69 has held that the minimum compensation payable in case of death of minor child is Rs. 150000/-. The parents are the petitioners and they contend that after the death of their child the mother had to go for artificial insemination for begetting a child, for which, it is said that they spent Rs. 12,4000/-. The said amount is also claimed as damages. The treatment taken by the petitioners to beget a child by artificial insemination is only a remote consequence and not an immediate consequence of the actionable injury.2. In that view, the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 15,0000/-with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2006Kant250; ILR2006KAR761; 2006(3)KarLJ286
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This Second appeal is filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Prl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur in R.A.No. 3/91 in allowing the appeal and reversing the findings of the Civil Judge, Tarikere in O.S. No. 70/86 dated 31.3.872. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendants for return of earnest money of Rs. 65,000/- said to have been paid by him towards purchase of plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties over which the plaintiff had a charge and also to direct the defendants to produce 'B' schedule movables to Court and also for a personal decree against the defendants for return of the amount. The 1st defendant is a firm of which defendants 2 to 6 are partners. The properties described in the 'A' schedule is said to be a coffee estate known as Diwankhan 'C Estate owned by the defendants. It is stated that the defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for sale of plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR5132; (2007)6VST728(Karn)
H.L. Dattu, J.1. The appellant before us is a private limited company. It is registered both under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ('the KST Act' for short) and the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act ('the KTEG Act' for short). It is engaged in the manufacture of readymade garments in its industry located in a plot allotted by the Karnataka Industries Area Development Board ('KIADB' for short).2. For the assessment year 1994-95, the assesses had filed its annual returns in Form 5 before the Assessing Authority, declaring taxable purchases amounting to Rs. 3,43,920-72 liable for payment of entry tax. On verification of the books of accounts, the assessing authority has noticed, in the returns filed, the assessee had not disclosed the causing of entry of imported industrial machinery, namely, Industrial Sewing Machines amounting to Rs. 4,48,31,570/- into its industrial area situate at KIADB area. This view of the assessing authority is fortified by the inspection report of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR5951; 2006(1)KarLJ152
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. This reference and criminal appeal arise from the judgment of conviction dated 29-7-2005 and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar in S.C.No. 113/04. In this case, the two accused are charged, tried and convicted by the learned Trial Judge for the offences under Sections 376 and 302 both read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and on finding them guilty on both the counts, are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence Under Section 376 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and to the death punishment for the offence Under Section 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. Since the death punishment requires confirmation by this Court, the same has been referred under Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and it has been registered as Criminal R.C. No. 8/2005. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the sentence, the accused have approached this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1394/2005.2. The brief fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2006Kant57; 2006(1)KarLJ321
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the 1st defendant is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madikeri, in R.A. No. 15 of 1996, dated 9-10-2003, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Munsiff, Somwarpet, in O.S. No. 56 of 1994, dated 21-3-1996, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendants.2. The essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows.-Plaintiff filed O.S. No. 56 of 1994 against the defendants seeking for a judgment and decree to vacate and handover possession of the schedule property including the house and for arrears of rent of Rs. 5,4007- for the past 3 years at the rate of Rs. 150A p.m. from April 1991 to March 1994, future rents at the rate of Rs. 150/- p.m. from April 1994 onwards and for costs. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff purchased 0.15 acres o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR318; 2006(1)KarLJ1
N. Kumar, J.1. The appellants-Bangalore Development Authority (for short, 'the BDA'), the State of Karnataka, the former Chief Minister Sri S.'M. Krishna and two others have challenged in this batch of eight writ appeals the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the acquisition proceedings pertaining to 'ARKAVATHI LAYOUT' as well as the declaration made to the effect that the BDA has no jurisdiction to frame developmental schemes in Bangalore Metropolitan Area and against other reliefs granted in the writ petitions. Some writ petitions have also been filed challenging the acquisition of land for the formation of the 'Arkavathi Layout' on the grounds, which have been upheld by the learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment under appeal. Since identical questions of law and fact arise for consideration in the writ appeals and the writ petitions they are taken up for consideration together and are being disposed of by this common order. The facts leading to the present proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007ACJ954; 2006(6)KarLJ494
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Both the appeals pertain to different incidents. But common question of facts and law involved. Hence, both the appeals are heard together for common disposal.2. One Manjunath is the deceased in M.V.C. No. 2500 of 2001. The deceased is an inmate of the BMTC bus. One Nadecm, Suban, Islam and Hydar attempted to pick the pocket of the deceased, as a result altercation took place. The deceased was beaten to death. The police have registered a case against Nadeem and others for causing the murder in Cr. No. 218 of 1995 on the file of Sampangiramanagar Police Station.3. The deceased Maruthi in M.V.C. No. 419 of 1999 is travelling on the top of the North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation bus. Respondents 4 to 9 in M.V.C. No. 419 of 1999 had grouse against the deceased for personal reasons. In the altercation respondents 4 to 9 pushed down the deceased from the moving bus as a result Maruthi died. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the legal representatives of b...
Tag this Judgment!