Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-05-2007
Reported in : ILR2008KAR1074; LC2008(1)373; ILR2008(1)Kar1075; 2008(1)KCCRSN82; 2008(2)AIRKarR517; AIR2008NOC1286; 2008AIHC2063(Kar)
V. Jagannathan, J.1. A flower is inseparable from its fragrance. Waves do not exist without the sea. There cannot be 'night' without the day. 'Creation' does not exclude its creator. 'YAKSHAGANA' cannot be thought of without the name of Dr. Kota Shivarama Karanth (for short 'Dr. Karanath').2. Dr. Karanth, who combined in himself the role of a Novelist, Play writer, Essayist, Encyclopediationst, Cultural anthropologist, Artist, writer of Science, Environmentalist, a Jnanapeeta Awards, all rolled in one personality, was born in the year 1902. He left his indelible impressions on the literary Map of Karnataka. He died in the year 1997. Three years before his deaths Dr. Karanth got his 'Will' registered on 18.6.1994 and bequeathed copyrights of his 'literary works' to Smt. Malini Malya (plaintiff).3. A news item published in 'Vijay Karnataka' News paper dated 19.9.2001 revealed that the Yakshagana Ballet directed by Dr. Karanth was perforated at New Delhi. This gave raise to the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-29-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)KarLJ686; 2007(4)KCCRSN260; 2007(3)AIRKarR40.
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. In response to the order and direction dated 3-11-2006 passed/issued by this Court calling upon the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent No. 1 - Government of India to respond to the article capuoned 'Medicines out of commoners reach' published hi Deccan Herald, English News Daily dated 13-7-2006, Sri. Aravind Kumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General on instructions submits that the proposal for possible amendment to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1949 (for short the Act'] has not been carried out; that the Act has not been amended so far as was apprehended in the article; that, in fact, in the light of considerable resistance from the various departments of the Government, as indicated in the very article, the meeting itself had not taken place and therefore no decision of the Government was taken for the purpose of amending the Act on the lines indicated in the article.2. Sri. Muralidharan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-29-2007
Reported in : ILR2008KAR326; 2008(1)AIRKarR247; 2008LabIC(NOC)233(Kar)
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. W.P.No. 38974/99 is preferred by the Management of Larsen & Toubro Komatsu Limited challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 13.8.99 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, in I.D.No. 12/97, in so far as it pertains to reinstatement of four employees. W.P.No. 29500/2000 is preferred by the Larsen & Toubro Employees Association and its four workmen who were dismissed from the service challenging the very same award in so far as it denied hack wages and wages for the strike period and for other reliefs. As in these writ petitions what is impugned is the common award passed by the Industrial, Tribunal these writ petitions are taken up for consideration together, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. The facts in brief leading to the impugned award are as under:Larson and Toubro Komatsu Limited is a leading engineering industry in India with an annual turn over of more than Rs. 4,300/- crores, on the date of the writ petition. It is having a factory ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-18-2007
Reported in : ILR2007KAR4790; 2008(2)KarLJ406
V. Jagannathan, J.1. These two appeals are clubbed together and a common judgment is rendered in view of common question of law of considerable importance being raised concerning the question relating to a married daughter also being entitled to be treated as a coparcener irrespective of the marriage taking place prior to the Karnataka Amendment Act, 1990 coming into force or afterwards, in view of the amendment affected to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (for short 'the Principal Act') by the State of Karnataka by The Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990 (Karnataka Act No. 23/1994), with effect from 30th July 1994 and the subsequent amendment brought to the Principal Act by the Central Government by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (C.A. 39/2005) with effect from 9.9.2005.2. Briefly stating the facts, RSA No. 904/2001 is preferred by the plaintiff in the trial Court questioning the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court in modifying the share of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-30-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)KarLJ394; ILR2007(2)Kar1845; 2007(3)KCCRSN124; 2007(3)AIRKarR510;
ORDERManjula Chellur, J.1. These two Writ Petitions arise out of the orders passed by the Land Tribunal in LRF.ATC. 3373/75-76 dated 25.5.2001. The Writ Petition 21925/01 is filed by the applicant who sought for grant of occupancy rights in respect of ay No. 33/2 of Hosakerehalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South, measuring 10 acres. The other Writ Petition 22437/01 is filed by the legal representatives of the landlord Mr. Appaji.2. The Tribunal while disposing of the application, rejected grant of occupancy rights in respect of 7 acres of land in the above said sy. number which is the subject matter of challenge in the first Writ Petition. The grant of occupancy rights in favour of C. Hanumanthappa to an extent of 3 acres in the same sy. number is challenged in the 2nd Writ Petition.3. There is no dispute so far as Mr. Marulaiah purchasing the above said land in all measuring 10 acres. The dispute seems to be with regard to the occupancy of the land by Mr. C. Hanumanthappa a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-08-2007
Reported in : 2007(2)KarLJ37
N. Kumar, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal.2. Defendant is the owner of the suit property bearing Sy. No. 576 (Old S. No. 319/2) measuring 1 acre 22 guntas situated at Venkatapura, Kasaba hobli, Pavagada taluk, Tumkur District. Plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale to purchase the said land from the defendant for a sale consideration of Rs. 2500/- on 28.4.1987. It is his case that a sum of Rs. 1000/- was paid as advance on the date of the agreement which the defendant received to discharge the loan due to one VSSN Venkatapura, a Society, when the said society has brought the property for sale. However, the sale agreement was reduced into writing on 29.4.87. A sum of Rs. 1,200/- was paid under the aforesaid agreement on 18.8.87 which is endorsed on the agreement in front of the witnesses. The balance sale consideration of Rs. 300/ - was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed. All the documents pertaining to the suit schedule property...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-28-2007
Reported in : AIR2007Kant125; III(2008)BC274; [2007]138CompCas867(Kar); ILR2007KAR2449; 2007(6)KarLJ171
ORDERAbdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, ('Tribunal' for short) dated 22.12.2006 in ASA No. 35/2005 directing redelivery of possession of the property in question which was proceeded against by the petitioner through its authorised officer under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('the Act' for short).2. Brief facts of the case are as under:Petitioner is a nationalised bank ('Bank' for short). The head office of the Bank is situated at Manipal. The Bank has a branch at Dandeli in Uttara Kannada District. The respondent and two others had availed financial accommodation of over-draft facility from the Bank and secured the said loan by creating unregistered equitable mortgage of the land and the commercial building bearing plot Nos. 62 and 63 situated in Ward No. I-A, CMC, 200 acres layout. J.N. Road, Dandeli, belonging ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-09-2007
Reported in : ILR2008KAR257; (2008)13VST377(Karn); 2008(1)KCCR451; 2008(2)AIRKarR8; 2008LabIC1763
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. These matters are listed before this Court pursuant to the order passed by the Supreme Court on 14.7,2006 in Civil Appeal No. 4476/00 and connected matters. The operative portion of the said order reads as under;-Since relevant data do not appear to have been placed before the High Courts, we permit the parties to place them in the concerned writ petitions within two months, The concerned High Courts shall deal with the basic issue as to whether the impugned levy was compensatory in nature. The High Courts are requested to decide the aforesaid issue within five months from the date of receipt of our order. The Judgment in the respective cases shall be placed on record by the concerned parties within a months from the date of the decision in each case pursuant to our direction.2. Ms. Vani, learned Counsel for the appellant filed a memo requesting this Court to treat the applications I.A.II/06, for production of additional documents, as having been filed in this app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-13-2007
Reported in : ILR2007KAR3309;
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. At the request of the learned Single Judge, large number of Civil Revision Petition have been referred to this Bench by the directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.2. Though the referral request of the learned Single Judge does not indicate as to what is the order of reference or what question of law is required to be decided by a Division Bench, since after hearing the learned Counsel appearing in these cases, it appears to us general principles in so far as jurisdiction of the Small Causes Courts entertaining a suit for ejectment, as laid down in few of the decision referred in this order, requires consideration.3. As no specific referral order and question for decision is formulated by the learned Single Judge, we have taken his case as a lead case and discussed the scope, jurisdiction and enquiry of Small Causes Courts in entertaining a suit for ejectment, carved out of the exception to the schedule under Small Causes Courts Act. The sequence leading to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-25-2007
Reported in : (2007)10VST330(Karn); 2007(4)KCCRSN253; 2007(3)AIRKarR29; 2007-08(5)VATToday33(DB)
ORDER1. State of Karnataka is before us aggrieved by the orders passed in STA Nos. 279/1999, 280/1999, 323, 444, 497 and 498/2001 and 296/2003 dated 27.12.2003 in this revision petition.2. Facts as narrated in the revision petition are as under:Respondent is a Company registered under the Companies Act. It is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Acts'). Respondent was earlier known as Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited (Lipton Division) and was amalgamated with the respondent Company w.e.f. 21.3.1997. Respondent has established a new industrial unit engaged in the production of blended packed teas at Dharwad since 8.9.1992 and 6.5.1993 respectively. Respondent availed sales tax exemption benefit for a period of six years from the date of commencement of commercial production in terms of the scheme evolved by the Government vide Government Order dated 27.9.1990 and sales tax exemption Notification dated 19.6.1991. 3. The Assistant...
Tag this Judgment!