1. Century Comforts v. State of Karnataka, 14-09-2018
Hotel Industry - Denial of exemption in payment of Stamp Duty, which was promised by the State Government - The petitioner was called upon to establish a Hotel under the Tourism policy of the State Government. The Tourism policy and the order made in the Tourism policy provides that the concession and incentives can be availed by the persons who establish the Hotels in terms of the Tourism policy for a period of five years starting from 20.10.2009 to 19.10.2014. The approval granted on 13.04.2010 to the petitioner was well within the period stated in the order dated 20.10.2009. The petitioner having acted in terms of the promise held out by the respondents, the subsequent notification issued by the Department of Revenue fixing the period as 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014, is clearly detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. The non- coordination between the Department of Tourism and Department of Revenue, which gave rise to the anomalous situation cannot and will not enable the State Government to take a stand that is detrimental to the person who has acted on the promise held out by the State Government. The petitioner is entitled for refund of 75% stamp duty that was paid under protest.
2. State of Karnataka v. P. Krishnappa, 14-09-2018
Service Law - Appointment on compassionate grounds - Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) - more than ten years of service as a daily wager - entitled to be considered for regularization - the KSAT has not committed any error in arriving at its conclusion.
3. Ashaima Khan Anjum v. Karnataka Examinations Authority, 14-09-2018
UG NEET 2018 - petitioner has passed the pending subject namely, Chemistry in the qualifying examination well before the schedule provided for the admission process to be completed. In that regard, the revised schedule as at Annexure-F would indicate that the last date for the candidates to join is 15.09.2018. In that circumstance, if prior to the last date, the Colleges have vacant seats and there are no candidates available from the list already prepared and sent by the KEA to the Colleges in respect of such vacant seats, the candidature of the petitioner be considered by placing the petitioner at the bottom of the list and the admission be completed.
4. Union Public Service Commission v. A. Lokesha, 14-09-2018
Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 - Regulation 5(c) - Selection to the IAS from the non-service cadre - Preparation of a list of suitable Officers by Committee - a committee shall meet every year to consider the proposal of the State Government made under Regulation 4 and recommend the names of the persons, after the suitability of a person for appointment is determined. The proviso read with the sub-proviso (c) indicates that no meeting of the committee shall be held and no list for the year in question shall be prepared when the Commission either on its own or on a proposal made by the Central Government or the State Government considers that it is not practical to hold a meeting of the committee during the year in the facts and circumstance of each case.
5. Union Public Service Commission v. A. Lokesha, 14-09-2018
Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 - Regulation 5(c) - Selection to the IAS from the non-service cadre - Preparation of a list of suitable Officers by Committee - There is no bar for the meeting to be held if not held before 31st day of December of the particular year even in circumstance where the process had commenced. On the other hand it gives a discretion to the petitioner, Central Government or the State Government not to hold the meeting if it considers that it is not practicable to hold a meeting of the Committee during the year, in the facts and circumstance of each case. It would only mean that the Regulation does not compel holding of the meeting every year irrespective of, or by ignoring every other relevant fact. In other words the Non-service Officers need not be selected to the IAS cadre mandatorily every year for just exceptions and it is to that extent the discretion is given so that the said authorities shall not be compelled.
6. V. Harikrishnan v. State of Karnataka, 11-09-2018
Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Allegations of mismanagement and misappropriation of funds/property of the Society - Appointment of an Administrator.
7. Manjunatha Y.V. v. State of Karnataka, 11-09-2018
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B, 307, 302 r/w Section 149 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25 and 27 - In the complaint, there is no specific allegation made to the effect that the said alleged incident has been seen by the eye witnesses. In the complaint, it is stated that accused No.2 along with 4 to 5 persons had constituted an unlawful assembly and with an intention, they have murdered the deceased. Even though there is specific overt act stated, as could be seen from the statement of P, the petitioner has assaulted the deceased with long on his right side of the stomach and back. Under similar circumstances, accused Nos.5, 6, 7 have been released on bail by this Court. Therefore, without expressing anything on merits of the matter, I feel that on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
8. Muddana Venkata Ramesh v. State by Mahadevapura Police, 11-09-2018
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 - Insofar as accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, it indicates that they were not residing in the said house, but they used to come as visitors and at that time, they used to ill-treat and harass the deceased for demand of dowry. Insofar as accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, it indicates that they were residing together. That the investigation is still pending and that it is a specific case of learned Government Pleader that the accused persons are absconding and are not available for investigation and still investigation is not yet complete and hence, under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and that death has taken place within seven years of marriage. Under these circumstances and without complete records, it is not possible to appreciate the submissions which have been made by learned counsel for the petitioners. The petition stands dismissed in respect of accused No.2 and in respect of accused No. 3 and 4, the petition is allowed and are granted anticipatory bail.
9. Rabbani v. State of Karnataka, 11-09-2018
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 441- Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323 and 307 read with Section 34 - Bond of accused and sureties - cash security - solvent sureties - seeking cash security from the accused as pre- condition for grant of bail amounts to defeating Article 21 of the Constitution. The procedure of obtaining Solvency Certificate causes procedural difficulties to the sureties, therefore, such condition shall not be insisted. Section 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not contemplate furnishing of solvent sureties. The whole purpose of seeking solvent sureties or personal bond is to secure the accused before the Court for trial. The conditions imposed shall not be such that they defeat the bail order granted.
10. Management of M/s. Adyar Anand Bhavan Sweets India Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Director, 07-09-2018
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 85(g) & 85(ii) - Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 - Regulation 16 - Corporation to receive assistance from employers - Punishment for failure to pay contributions - There is no material to show that inspite of the request made by the petitioner, whether the respondent-Corporation has taken any action by arranging camps. Such being the case, when the petitioner-Firm has shown its willingness to extend all its assistance to the respondent-Corporation in ensuring that its employees would get their photo identity cards by submitting themselves for photographs to be taken by respondent-Corporation, it is not known as to what further assistance the Corporation was expecting from the petitioner. Even the complaint at Annexure-L also nowhere says as to what assistance the accused-Firm failed to extend to the Corporation. Only in a couple of line at paragraph No.7 in the complaint, it is stated that 'the accused failed to send their covered employees for photographing to issue Pehchan Cards (Identity Cards)', however, as already observed above, in its reply at Annexure-B, the petitioner-Firm has specifically stated that it has asked its employees to come and get their photographs taken for the purpose of ESI identity cards. Consequently, the private complaint filed by the respondent-Corporation would also not sustain and the same deserves to be quashed.
11. B.M. Venkatalakshmamma v. P.M. Gopi, 06-09-2018
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 3 - Where there is a tenant in possession under a lease, or an agreement, a person, purchasing part of the estate, must be bound to inquire, on what terms that person is in possession - a person purchasing the immovable property is bound to make an enquiry as to on what terms and conditions the said person is in possession of the said property and if the said possession is legal, then under such circumstances, the only course left open to the purchaser of the property is to evict by due process of law.
12. Nagalakshmamma v. Dyavanna, 04-09-2018
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - In a suit for declaration, it is for the plaintiff to establish his title by producing cogent evidence before the Court. It is for the Court to accept or reject the evidence of the Special Power of Attorney holder at the final stage of the suit. If, according to the defendant, the Special Power of Attorney holder is not competent person to adduce evidence in this suit, it is for the defendant to take advantage of the situation and request the court at the final stage not to accept the evidence of Special Power of Attorney holder for the reasons to be submitted by the defendant. Therefore, for the reasons stated by the defendant in her application, evidence adduced by the Special Power of Attorney holder cannot be discarded. The trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the defendant under Section 151 of CPC and has rightly allowed the application under Order III Rule 2(A) of CPC filed by the Special Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff.
13. Vijayashreepura Kshemabivrudhi Sangha (Okkoota) Regd. v. State of Karnataka, 03-09-2018
Regularization of Unauthorized Constructions in Urban Areas Act, 1991 (Karnataka) - Section 4 - the unauthorized occupants have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in the name of various 'Associations'. Though the prayer for regularization has been rejected in more than one batch of writ petitions, it is evident that several other petitions are again filed, seeking the same relief. The unauthorized occupants of the land in question cannot be allowed to run riot in this manner. There is no gainsaying that there has to be finality to every litigation. Hence, the decision taken herein shall apply to all the persons and Associations representing such persons, who claim to be in possession of any portion of the land in question.
14. Dream Merchants v. State of Karnataka, 03-09-2018
Entertainment Tax Act, 1958 (Karnataka) - Ss. 6-A (3) & 6-A (4) - Bangalore Fashion Week - 'payment for admission' to the said event - Whether liable to entertainment tax and penalty - Held, a bare look at the definition of 'entertainment' in the Act of 1958 is sufficient to find that the expression has been defined in too wide and broad terms which undoubtedly take within their sweep an event like the one organised by the appellant, namely, a fashion show, which was sponsored by the interested manufacturers or business houses and which comprised of lifestyle parties, after-hour parties, press conferences, and exhibition of designer products/apparels by live models walking on the ramp and on mannequins. The said event definitely falls within the expressions 'exhibition' as also 'performance', apart that it would also answer to the description of an amusement for recreation and entertainment and even of a pageant.
15. Aryan Builders and Developers v. Raman Kumar Singh, 03-09-2018
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 - When the parties stand at conflict and the disputes do exist, which have not been resolved; and for the reason of failure of the procedure for appointment of Arbitrator, it is just and proper that an independent arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate upon and decide the disputes between the parties, including their claims, counter claims and objections.
Comments
Post a Comment