Karnataka Court March 1993 Judgments

Karnataka Electricity Board Vs. Oriental Timber Industries

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1993KAR2072

ORDER 41 RULE 33 - No relief when party failed to seek, particular relief; more so, when time barred & right accrued to opposite party.No one can doubt the power of the appellate Court to give the appropriate reliefs to the parties under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC. But when the party itself has failed to seek the particular relief, the appellate Court will not be justified in granting that very relief under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC, more so, when the relief had become time barred and a right had accrued to the defendants.On Facts: The Court would have been justified in granting mandatoryinjunction for the restoration of electric supply, if they had given afinding that the demand made by the Board is invalid or if theyhad held that the defendants had no right to recover the allegeddues. As the Courts below have not come to the conclusion thatthe defendants have no right to recover the alleged dues, theywere not justified in issuing mandatory injunction and decreeingthe suit of the respondents....

Maruthi Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1993KAR1158; 1993(1)KarLJ627

K.A.Swami, Ag. C.J.1. This Appeal is preferred against the order dated 12th October 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 27252 of 1992. Learned Single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition. Therefore, the petitioner has come up in this Appeal. All the respondents are served. Respondents 1 to 3 are represented through Sri S.R. Nayak, learned Government Advocate and Respondent No. 4 is represented by Sri T.S.Ramachandra, Advocate.2. As the Appeal involves a short question, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.3. In the Writ Petition, appellant/petitioner sought for the followingreliefs:'(a) Issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, declaring the order at Annexure-B, dated 22.8.1932 in No. ECS/20/Mis/92 as illegal and unenforceable; (b) issue a writ, and set aside or recall the order dated 20.8.1992 in W.P.No. 23949/92; and (c) issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to strictly enforce the provisions of the Karnataka Excise (Tapping ...

Javeeda Sherieff Vs. Mohd. Hafeez

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(1993)DMC157; ILR1993KAR1124; 1993(1)KarLJ622

ORDERVasanthakumar, J. 1. Heard the petitioner's Counsel on merits eventhough the matter was listed in the orders List since notice issued to respondent has been served and he has remained absent and unrepresented. 2. This Civil Petition is directed against an order dated 6.8.92 passed in Miscellaneous proceedings No. 404/92 filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Court of the Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City seeking for transfer of G.W.C. proceedings No. 143/81 which was pending on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, wherein the Court on 11.12.86 had passed an order in respect of custody of minor child born out of wedlock between one Md. Hafeez (the petitioner in G & WC. 143/81) and Javeeda Hafeez (the respondent in G & W. 143/81. 3. The operative portion of the order reads:- 'The petition is dismissed. The, respondent shall continue to retain custody of minor Jauher Hafeez but the minor shall not be removed from the jurisdiction of t...

Bhima Vs. Taluka Executive Magistrate

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1993KAR1504; 1993(2)KarLJ47

ORDERVasanthakumar, J.The petitioner in this Writ Petition has sought for quashing of the order dated 23.11.1992 passed in K.D.R.RA.2/89-90 by the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum.1. Before adverting to the contentions advanced, reference to previous proceedings pending between the parties on record would throw much light to decide the issues involved. One Bhima son of Rama Hiralkodi on 30.4.1975 had mortgaged an extent of 2 acres and 10 guntas comprised in Sy.No.458 situate in Kanagala Village in favour of one Shankar son of Jotiba Kire Kodi for a sum of Rs. 8,500/- and in pursuance of the same possession of the lands in question was delivered to Shankar. Subsequently, Bhima filed an application under the provisions of the Karnataka Debtors Relief Act, 1976 seeking relief from indebtedness, proceeding being numbered as KDR/HKP. 445 dated 25.11.1976, the Taluka Magistrate passed the order, the operative portion being:-'At the outset, it is admitted by the petitioner himself that he owns 7 ...

Corporation Bank Vs. Lalitha H. Holla and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1997]88CompCas403(Kar); 1993(37)KarLJ501

R.V. Raveendran, J. 1. Respondents Nos. 1 to 52, herein filed a petition for winding up against respondent No. 53 (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') in Company Petitions Nos. 43 to 94 of 1992 (later clubbed with Company Petition No. 43 of 1992). The said petitions were admitted on August 28, 1992. The company is the owner of premises No. 48, Church Street, Bangalore. An order has been made by this court on September 22, 1992, in C.A. No. 988 of 1992, directing the tenants of the company to deposit the rents from September, 1992, and onwards into court, to preserve the assets of the company and proper management thereof, so that the interests of the large body of unsecured creditors can also be protected. 2. The applicant bank (hereinafter also referred to as 'the bank') claims to be a secured creditor of the company. According to the applicant, a sum of Rs. 98 lakhs was advanced by the bank to the company and in that behalf the company had executed an on-demand promissory note,...

Appropriate Authority and Others Vs. Mass Traders Private Limited and ...

Court: Karnataka

S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. These petitions are directed against two orders made under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), On July 25, 1989, initiating action under Chapter XX-C of the Act.2. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 entered into an agreement to sell their respective undivided interest in the property comprised in Municipal Nos. 4 and 5 (new Nos. 9 and 11), situate at Infantry Road, Bangalore, with the petitioner herein. The agreement entered into between the aforesaid parties disclosed that the consideration for sale of the property was Rs. 1,38,04,850 as far as the share of respondent No. 2 is concerned and Rs. 46,01,475 as far as the share of respondent No. 3 is concerned. The property in question consists of land measuring 43,309 square feet comprising within it main building and outhouse with a plinth area of 960 square metres. It is located, one side facing Queen's Road and the other side facing Infantry Road, Bangalore. This property originally belong...

Vengamma Trust Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1994]93STC207(Kar)

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. This revision petition by the assessee under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short) pertains to the assessment period April 1, 1983 to March 31, 1984. The petitioner is a hotelier wherein eatables and drinks are supplied. According to the petitioner there are two kinds of supplies. In one kind the customers may take the eatables and drinks themselves from the counter, for which the price charged is at a lower rate. In the other kind, food and drinks are served at the table in respect of which price charged includes what the petitioner terms as service charges. According to the petitioner this service charge should be excluded from the levy of sales tax because in this second category of sales, the dominant object is to render service of supplying the articles (food and drinks) and not the sale of food articles. This contention was not accepted by the Revenue and the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner also challenges the lev...

B.G. Sathyanarayana Setty Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1993KAR1097; 1993(1)KarLJ573

R. Ramakrishna, J. 1. The important Question of Law which arises in this Appeal relates to the construction of Clause-3 of Sub-clause (1) of the Karnataka Edible Oil Dealers Licencing Order, 1977 (shortly 'Order'). 2. The appellant is the proprietor of Sri. Vinayaka Traders, No.1247/A, Santhepet, Arsikere Town, Hassan District. He was charged having committed an offence under' Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (shortly 'the Act'), having contravened the provisions of Clause-3 of the Order. The learned Sessions Judge having found that the prosecution has proved this contravention, has convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to pay the fine amount, he shall suffer S.I. for a period of one month. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, P.W.1 A.N. Ramegowda, who was working as a Police Sub-Inspector Food and Civil Supplies Cell, Bangalore, made a surprise visit to the Vinayaka Traders along with his st...

Ashok Gramodyoga Sahakara Sangha Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial T ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1993]90STC491(Kar)

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. These revision petitions pertain to the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 (for the year ending 30th June). The assessee purchased paddy and sold hand pounded rice. The question pertains to the liability of the petitioner regarding the turnover pertaining to hand pounded rice. 2. During the relevant period, the petitioner had the requisite recognition certificate issued under rule 25-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957. By virtue of this certificate of recognition, the petitioner claimed that the turnover in question was not liable to be taxed during the period of the certificate. The assessing authority did not accept this contention of the petitioner. The alternative contention of the petitioner that under explanation I of the Fourth Schedule, the petitioner is entitled to set-off in respect of the tax paid on the purchase turnover of paddy was also negatived. The petitioner filed an appeal to the first appellate authority. The appellate authority d...

Maniram Industrial Enterprises Vs. B.R. Sreeram

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1994KAR658; 1994(2)KarLJ692

Hanumanthappa, J.1. The petitioner in this Revision Petition is sole respondent in H.R.C.No. 1267/1989 and 1269/1989. On his filing objections both the parties entered the witness box. When evidence was in progress landlord filed an application under Section 153 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. viz., I.A.No. 12, requesting that he may be permitted to amend the cause title as under:'M/s Maniram Industrial Enterprises, A registered partnership firm, represented by its partner Smt. Parvathi Subramaniam, w/o. Sri A.S. Subramanyam, No. 27/30, II Main Road, Industrial Town, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 044.'2. The said application was opposed by the tenant/petitioner. However, the trial Court taking into consideration that by allowing the amendment no prejudice will be caused to the other side, passed an order permitting the landlord to delete the name of the respondent as represented by the General Manager A.S. Subramaniam and in its place to substitute partner Smt. Parvathi Subramanyam.3. Shr...