SUPREME COURT
Karnataka Government Parks (Preservation) Act-1975.
In the matter of Cubbon Park.
I.L.R 2003 KAR 2809
Under sec 306 and 498 of I.P.C.
Suicide disbelieved.
HIGH COURT
Karnataka High Court dissents from Delhi High Court judgment and held a minority Creditor can oppose
rehabilitation scheme and seek recovery.
Final year BDS Student was erroneously failed by the college in practicals, hence the High Court of
Karnataka directed the Vice-Chancellor to enquire and conduct re-exam.
Execution Petition under Order 21 Rule 50(3) was dismissed against alleged partners by Civil Court.
Decree Holder challenged the same in Writ Petition and the same was dismissed as not maintainable
because it was an appealable order.
Prosecution sanctioned u/s 15 (1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act against the Appellants/Plaintiffs and his counsel for deliberately and willfully making wrong and misleading statements with the view to obtain favorable order from the High Court.
Where an eviction petition is filed subsequent to the Karnataka Land Reforms Amendment Act and if by that time, if any application was pending before the Land Reforms Tribunal, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to give its finding on the question of the relationship of landlord and tenant to find out whether there is any agrarian relationship or not. In the instant case, the Land Tribunal on the basis of already concluded evidence of Civil Court rejected Form No.7 of the Appellant. The Order of the Land Tribunal was set aside for fresh consideration.
Regarding territorial jurisdiction of criminal courts in respect of offences under Sec 406,409 & 420 IPC.
Interim Order directing the bank to restore the possession of the mortgaged property forthwith, pending disposal of the writ petition challenging the illegal demand notice & possession taken under Sec 13 of the Securitisation Act.
Interim Order of DRAT, Chennai, modified & bank directed to refund the deposit of Rs. 5lakhs, because the bank had no right to retain the deposit, as it was already holding surplus money on the sale of the borrower’s property under the Securitisation Act.
Contempt against Disobedience of T.I. not to alienate issued by Civil Court, not maintanable before High Court.
Court fees for pending appeals filed before 2/2/2007, under Sec 17 of the SARFAESI ACT, is payable under rule 13 of Security Interest (Enforcement) rules 2002. Lower Court Fee prescribed under new rule 13 notified on 2/2/2007 is applicable retrospectively. DRT rules not applicable. The question whether order 33 of CPC to sue as the indigent person before the DRT is left open.
(Link will open a pdf file – 6.41mb) (Right-click on above link -> Save Target As)
Retrospective Ammendment of Section 15(5)(e) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act 2003 is struck down as invalid & violative of fundamental right. Therefore the retrospective demand to pay purchase tax on purchases made from unregistered dealers, in addition to 4% composition tax paid for
works contract, has been set aside.
Conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld in criminal appeal, but high court in revision
set aside the appellate order and remanded back with direction to appoint amicus-curiae
for the appellant who never argued the appeal. The view taken is contrary to law laid down
in Bani Singh’s case by Supreme Court.
Standard Weights & Measures Act.
Writ petition against department of weights & measures allowed.
Ex-parte injunction cannot be sustained if the I.A. is not disposed within 30 days of the order by trial court, as being mandatory under order 39 rule 3A of the CPC.
Order 39 Rule 3 of C.P.C.
Non-Compliance resulted in setting aside of status-quo
Hindu Marriage Act-1955
Restitution Rejected
Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act 1979.
Personal liability cannot be invoked with out selling collateral security.
Constitution Chapter X & XA
Single Judge Judgment quashing BDA Arkavathi Layout is set aside.
Criminal Petition under section 482
Notice by A.C.P quashed.
Service tax
I.L.R. 1995 KAR 2845
Regulation 7.3 of the Bangalore Water Supply Regulation as inserted by the Bangalore Water Supply (Amendment) Regulations, 1998, has to be and is held to be ultra vires, illegal, null and void. Restrained from realizing any amount or money on the basis of the deemed or assumed consumption of water.
Criminal complaint u/s 138 N.I Act was maliciously dismissed after trial on extraneous grounds that complaint was time barred because it was not filed within 15 days from the date of notice issued.
Held: The Erroneous order was set aside and the accused was convicted with twice the check amount and one year imprisonment in default. Further complaint filed against the erring magistrate directed to be placed before the chief justice for inhouse action.
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Appeal against the order of Deputy Commissioner passed u/s 271 A
The imposition of penalty U/s 271 A Income Tax Act is discretionary because reasonable cause for not maintaining books of accounts under section 44 (a) (b) was made out.
LABOUR COURT
wrongfully terminated employee reinstatement with full back wages
CONSUMER COURT
Consumer Complaint Against excess billing by Airtel allowed
wrongful repudiation of Mediclaim–Consumer complaint allowed with
interest and cost.
wrongful repudiation of Mediclaim–Consumer complaint allowed with
interest and cost.
Consumer Complaint filed against Lift manufacturer for installing sub-standard lift risking lives of residents of Apartment. It was noticed that the Lift manufacturer did not have license as required under Karnataka Lifts Act. Further, Electrical Inspector held the Lift to be unusable. Operating Lift without obtaining license is a punishable offence under the Act. Nothing to show that the Lift manufacturer had taken caution in testing the status of power supply of Lift before installation, causing burning of mother board repeatedly.
District Forum allows complaint and directs refund of cost of Lift along with interest.
CITY CIVIL COURT,BANGALORE
HELD: Temporary Injunction in favor of a Purchaser under an unregistered sale deed for protection of possession against the Seller was rejected.
CIVIL COURT,DEVANHALLI
Second Suit for injunction dismissed U/O 7 rule 11 of CPC.
HELD: IA for Temporary Injunctions rejected.
HELD: Temporary Injunction granted against the erstwhile Jodidhar of Navarathna Agrahara Village, Devanahalli, in respect of the land sold after Inams Abolition Act.
ADVOCATE GENERAL
Permission granted to initiate criminal contempt.
Small Cause Courts, Bangalore
Eviction Suit- Defendant filed Order 12 Rule 6 application to dismiss suit as infructuous. Quit Notice issued to Shop. No.19/3 and PW-1 admitted in the Cross-examination to have sold Shop No.19/3. Subsequently, Plaintiff amended the plaint to Shop No.19/2 and the same was allowed. However, an injunction already existed on Shop No.19/2 in City Civil Court. Hence, barred by jurisdiction. Therefore, suit dismissed as being infructuous.