Court : Karnataka
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. Writ petition by a person who is presently working as a 'watermen' in the respondent 4-Honnudike Grama Panchayat, Gulur Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and District who is basically aggrieved by the appointment of respondent 5 to the post of 'bill collector' in terms of as many as three resolutions passed by the fourth respondent-Honnudike Grama Panchayat. 2. The Panchayat in its meeting held on 4-7-2003 and as recorded on 21-7-2003 (copy at Annexure-R1) had resolved to appoint the fifth respondent as a bill collector at its office, as an incumbent in the office had retired. The Panchayat had for such purpose invited applications from eligible persons by putting up a notification in this regard on its notice board. 3. The petitioner, fifth respondent, who was a former member of the very Panchayat and 10 others, it appears, had applied and amongst them, the fifth respondent was selected and appointed in terms of the resolution dated 4-7-2003. 4. The petitioner being...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2006CriLJ3356; RLW2006(3)Raj1998; 2006(3)WLC140
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. This appeal, on behalf of accused Ratan Lal Son of Shri Roop Ram, is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2002, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lakshmangarh (Alwar), in Sessions Case No. 99/2000, whereby he was convicted Under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, MPC) and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's additional rigorous imprisonment, for the charge that he committed forcefully sexual intercourse with a minor girl Sanju, aged about 4 years, on 9.8.2000.2. Shri Dharam Gopal Chaturvedi, the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant, contended that there is no substantive evidence in the present case about rape committed by the accused- appellant as neither the prosecutrix has been examined in the present case nor there is any eye witness thereto. He also contended that prosecutrix Sanju was not examined in spi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2006(6)KarLJ233
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 30/08/2000 in Appeal No. 122/1999 as per Annexure 'E' and the order passed by the Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records in Karnataka, dated 30/11/1998 in Appeal No. 37/1996-1997 as per Annexure 'D' wherein an order has been passed to delete the names of Bylappa, son of Byranna and Channigappa, son of Dodda Channarayappa from the second re-classification prathi book dated 13/02/1960 in respect of Sy.No. 51 of Kuntanahalli Village.2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the sons of Channigappa. The land measuring 11 acres 27 guntas in Sy.No. 51 of Kuntanahalli Village, belongs to Sri. Byranna, son of Sri. Giddappa of Kadanur Village Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, and the names of Bylappa, son of Byranna and Channigappa, son of Doddachannarayappa were entered as joint o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR2896; 2006(6)KarLJ350
ORDER1. These two writ petitions involving the common question of law were heard together and they are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment.2. The primary question for consideration in these two writ petition is whether this Court should entertain the petitions which are purportedly filed as the public interest litigation.3. The brief reference to the factual position would suffice.4. The petitioners in W.P.No. 8003/2006 are the ex-corporator of the Belgaum Municipal Corporation, whereas the petitioners in W.P.No. 8004/2006 are the ex-corporators and the social workers of the Gulbarga City, They have filed these two writ petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution by way of public interest litigation for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to hold elections to the 4th respondent - Municipal Corporation after completion of the process of de-limitation/determination/constitution of wards as per the 2001 census as provided under Section 21(1)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(1)CHN458
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr. PC filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the order dated 13.08.2002 passed by the learned Judge. Second Special Court, Calcutta in Special Case No. 08/95 discharging the O.P. from the case.2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that on receipt of source information that the O.P., Senior Manager of Canara Bank, Rabindra Sarani Branch, Kolkata entered into a criminal conspiracy with some unknown persons and had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- against one Kamdhenu Deposit Receipt (KDR No. 372/87) preparing forged documents without the knowledge of the depositor and cheated the said Bank to the tune of the said amount, that one Sukanta Sarkar purchased the KDR bearing No. 372/87 dated 28.11.87 for Rs. 5,00,000/- from Rabindra Sarani Branch of Canara Bank by depositing the abovementioned amount through a draft purchased from United Industrial Bank,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Heard Sri S.R. Hegde Hudlamane, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.G. Shivanna, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the respondent.2. The notice dated 21-6-2006 vide Annexure-D issued under Rule 3(2) of the Kamataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994, is under challenge. The said notice discloses that the meeting is fixed on 10-7-2006 to discuss the No-confidence Motion moved against the petitioner who is the Adhyaksha of Nagalapura Gram Panchayat. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the notice issued under Rule 3(2) of the said Rules, shall accompany the copy of the No-confidence Motion moved. He places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mallamma v. State of Kamataka and Ors. : ILR2002KAR4253 , in support of the said contention. However, the said contention is opposed by the learned Government Advocate.3. Relevant portion of Rule 3 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERR. Gururajan. J.1. Petitioner is before us challenging the order of the Karanataka Appellate tribunal dtd. 1-12-2003 passed in STA No. 1597 & 1598/2002.2. Petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of sugar from sugar cane. It sells the same along with its by-products like molasses and bagasses etc., For the assessment year period from 1-4-1990 to 31-3-1991 petitioner filed a return of turnover and declared the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 10,54,41,976.21 and Rs. 31,01,297.16 respectively. The assessing authority rejected the said return of turn over and passed an assessment order under Section 12(3) of the KST Act on 10-2-1998 and determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 19,35,80,540/- and Rs. 9,10,92,480/- respectively to the best of its judgment and levied tax of Rs. 97,86,260/-. In the said assessment order he had determined the purchase price of sugarcane at Rs. 390/- per MT. An appeal was filed before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Appeals. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
R.B. Misra, J.1. In Writ petition (C) No. 118 of 2006, the petitioners have challenged the Advertisement and Notice Inviting Tender (called 'NIT' in short hereinafter) for settlement of Foreign Liquor and Counrty Liquor shops by auction method under Notification F. 1(25)-Ex/S/2006/39 dated 21.01.2006 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and for renewal of their licenses under South Tripura District for the financial year 2006-2007, however the petitioners have not challenged any corrigendum.2. In W.P.(C) No. 117 of 2006 three (3) petitioner (Sri Bishnu Chandra Pal, Petitioner No. 1, who participated in the settlement process but was not successful, Petitioner No. 2, Sri Swapan Deb did not participate, Petitioner No. 3, Sri Tapan Deb said to have participated but was not declared successful) have challenged the advertisement and Notification No. 3688-89/F.IV-1(52) CEW/96(P-1) dated 18.01.2006, whereby, retail vend foreign liquor and country liquor shops proposed to be settled through auct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person who has filed an application for grant of mining lease in respect of an extent of 360 acres of land in Block 13 of Joga Village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary, in response to a notification No. CI 33 MMM 1994, Bangalore, dated 15.3.2003, copy at Annexure-A to the petition. It is stated that the application is filed under Rule 22 of the Mining Concession Rules, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules')2. Grievance of the petitioner is that though this application under Rule 22 in the prescribed Form-A was made as on 29.9.2004 and more than a year from the date of the application has elapsed the respondents have not considered and passed orders on the application of the petitioner, that the petitioner had made representation in this regard on 28.6.2006, copy at Annexure-C to the petition, even then there being no response, the present writ petition praying for issue of a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to consider the appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a licensed sugar factory, which is allotted certain cane growing area as ear marked to it for supply of cane by the growers under the provisions of Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Control Order').2. The present grievance of the petitioner is in the context that respondents 3, 4 and 5 have filed applications for setting up new sugar factories and such applications have been made to the State Government, Department of Industries and Commerce. It appears such applications are pending as per the averment in the writ petition.3. Petitioner having come to know about this has represented to the Commissioner for Cane Development and Director of Sugar, Petitioner has given a representation to the Director of Industries, Cane Development in Karnataka requesting him not to divert or reduce the cane growing area allocated to the petitioner factory as it is likely that in the event of new licenses being issued to start ...
Tag this Judgment!