Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-30-2011
(This Writ Appeal is filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the writ petition No.17369/2004 date 22/12/2006 to the extent it upheld the validity of the sub section (2) of section 3 of the Karnataka Electricity (Taxation on consumption) Act, 1959 amended vide Karnataka Act No.5 of 2004 – The Karnataka Electricity (Taxation on consumption) (Amendment) Act 2004.) Sabhahit, J. These appeals are filed by the respective petitioners in W.P.No.17369/2004 and connected matters which have been disposed of by a common order dated 22-12-2006 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has upheld the validity of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Electricity (Taxation on Consumption) Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) as amended vide Karnataka Act No.5/2004 by Karnataka Electricity (Taxation on Consumption) (Amendment Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Amending Act’), to grant complete relief as soug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-09-2011
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
Decided on : Dec-09-2011
(Prayer: This O.S. filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC before the City Civil and 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 plaintiff’s 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 th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on : Jan-13-2011
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. It is prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to 1) issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order of the Hon’ble Court below dated 18.4.2006 on I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioner under 0.XXXVIII Rules 5 of C.P.C. in Misc. Petition No.10/2004 vide Annexure-E and order dated 1.2.2007 on the I.A.No.V, filed by the Petitioner under 0.XXXIX R.1 and 2 in Misc. Petition No.10/2004 vide Annexure-G, and to further allow the said applications. 2) Grant such other relief’s as are deemed fit and necessary under the circumstances of the case including the cost of this writ petition.) 1. This writ petition is by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (hereinafter it is referred to as Corporation for the sake of brevity) seeking quashing of the orders dated 18.04.2006 passed on I.A.Nos.2 and 5 respectively in Miscellaneous Petition No.10/2004 by the District and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-20-2011
(Writ Petition No.18992/2003 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order passed by the Respondent Bank dated 03.10.2001 vide Annexure-L, dated 26.12.2002 vide Annexure-Y and dated 28-03-2003 vide Annexure-A and etc., Writ Petition No.40590/2003 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order by the Respondent/Bank dated 16.07.2003 vide Annexure-C and etc., Writ Petition No.30035/2004 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash vide Annexure-Y dated 01.07.2004 passed by the Respondent and etc., Writ Petition No.10563/2005 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash order dated 14.12.04 vide Annexure-V passed by the Bank and etc.,) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying to direct the respondent to disburse the pensionary benefits of this petition as per Annexure-B, forthwith and etc., These petitions are heard and disposed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-25-2011
(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
Decided on : Jan-31-2011
ABDUL NAZEER, J 1. In this case, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the decision/resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the BESCOM in its meeting held on 28.8.2010 in subject No.43/2006 in so far as it relates to award of the contract against enquiry No.BCP-396/2008-09 (Tender Notification – Annexure ‘A’) dated 1.4.2008 pertaining to Single Phase 5-30 Amps Class 1 State energy meter in favour of the third respondent and for quashing the order passed by the 4th respondent dated 27.102010 (Annexure ‘R’) in appeal No.EN.198.EEB.2010. The petitioner has further sought for a mandamus or such other appropriate writ or order directing the first respondent not to accept the bid/tender submitted by the third respondent in pursuance of the tender Notification at Annexure ‘A’ and to consider the bid of the petitioner and other bidders, who have qualified in the techno commercial bid and in the price bid in accordance with law. 2. The pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-02-2011
(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed praying to set aside the impugned order dated 01.10.2011 passed by the leasing trial judge pending on the files of the xviii addl, city civil and sessions judge of city civil unit, bangalore, cch no.10 in o.s.7109/2011 vide annexure-ab in so far as it relates to not granting interim reliefs as prayed for in interlocutory applications no.1 to iii in the said suit and direct the learned trial judge to pass considered orders on the applicatins for temporary injunction. Direct the defendants to render accounts of the defendant no.1 from 2009 till date. Showning its earnings from illegally manufacturing and selling box files bearing trademark “shiv nandi” which is deceptively similar to the trade mark “nandi” of the Petitioner.) 1. In these writ petitions order dated 01.10.2011 (Annexure-AB) passed by XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore on I.A.Nos.1/2011, 2/2011 and 3/2011 in O.S.No.7109/2011 is sought for being quashe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-16-2011
(Prayer: Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C praying to quash the decision of R-1 D.V.A.C., top hold further investigation purported to be under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C as disclosed in letter dated 15/06/2011 addressed by Dy. Superintendent of Police, D.V.A.C., to the Hon’ble Spl. Judge, Bangalore, and as per Annexure-E and all further proceedings pursuant thereto. (2) Direct that in all cases such as Criminal Petitions, Criminal Revision Petitions etc., arising out of Spl. C.C. No. 208/2004, pending on the file of the court of Spl. Judge and XXXVI Addl. S.J., (CCH-37), Bangalore, the R-1 D.V.A.C has to be represented by the R-2 special Public Prosecutor (appointed by the State of Karnataka as per the directions of Supreme Court in transfer petition (Crl. Nos.77-78/2003 dated 18/11/2003) or in the alternative, to make the said R-2 Special Public Prosecutor a party in all such proceedings and hear him. (30 Direct that the proceedings in Spl. C.C No, 208/2004 p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-06-2011
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 r/w Sec.4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 Praying to set aside the order dated 22.9.2010 passed by the learned single Judge in Co.P. No 49/2001 winding up the 1st appellant company under Annexure-E.) 1. This appeal is preferred by M/s Bellary Steels and Alloys Limited and its Managing Director challenging the order passed by the learned Company Judge winding up the company. 2. The creditors of the company including the first respondent company filed several company petitions before the Company Court for winding up of the company on the ground the company is unable to pay its debts. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the company was referred to Board for industrial and Financial Reconstruction and was declared as a sick industrial unit under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act). When once the company is declared as...
Tag this Judgment!