Karnataka Court September 1995 Judgments
J.M. Sohanlal and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant171; ILR1996KAR560; 1996(5)KarLJ334
ORDER1. Land measuring 1851.60 Sq. yards owned by the petitioners was acquired in terms of award No. LAC (C) 23/1983-84 dated 9-2-1987 made by the respondent. A total amount of Rs. 15,36,828.80 Ps. was determined and held payable to the petitioners as compensation for the propertyacquired to be shared by them equally. Out of the amount so determined a sum of Rs. 6,59,882/- is said to have been paid to the petitioners on 21-2-1994 thereby leaving a balance of Rs. 8,76,946.80 Ps. The petitioners' case in the present writ petitions is that even though the possession of the land was taken over on 22-2-1994 yet the balance amount of compensation due and payable to them under the award was not released in their favour thereby forcing the petitioners to file the present writ petition for a mandamus directing the respondents to release the balance amount of compensation in their favour with interest due thereon.2. When this matter came up before me on 26-9-1995, Mr. K. P. Ashok Kumar, learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Prasad Novelties Vs. State and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1995
Reported in: [2000]119STC448(Kar)
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax Acts. By an order of assessment dated June 8, 1995 relating to the period April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994, the assessing authority has assessed the inter-State sales on imitation jewellery to a tax at 10 per cent. The order of assessment with the notice of demand for Rs. 6,932 is produced as annexure 'B'. According to petitioner, the sale of imitation jewellery cannot be subjected to any tax having regard to section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Notification No. FD 58 CSL 93(I) dated March 31, 1993 issued under section 8A of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the assessing authority not to levy any tax on imitation jewellery when sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and quash the tax levied under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by quashing the assessment order with notice...
Tag this Judgment!Khathiza Vs. District Magistrate
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1197
ORDERTirath S.Thakur, J 1. Common questions of law have brought these Petitions together for a common hearing and disposal by this common Judgment.2. The petitioners applied for grant of stage carriage permits for different routes to the Regional Transport Authority, D.K. Mangalore. These applications were upon consideration rejected either in toto or in part by different Resolution passed by the authority and impugned in these Petitions. The Authority held that the permits in question could not be granted in view of two Notifications dated 6th December, 1990 and 6th April, 1993 issued by the District Magistrate, D.K. whereby the entry of City and Mofussil Services into the Hampana Katta area of the City of Mangalore had been prohibited.3. Aggrieved the petitioners have called in question the Notifications mentioned above, as also the decisions taken by the Regional Transport Authority rejecting the applications made by the petitioners.4. I may at this stage refer to the two Notificati...
Tag this Judgment!Lalithamma Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1004; 1996(1)KarLJ1
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed in public interest and calls in question two Government Orders one dated the 4th of August, 1984 and the other 25th May, 1987, whereby the Government have in the purported exercise of its powers under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 exempted land measuring 9.19 Acres underlying Sy.Nos. 105 & 108 of Allalsandra Village, G.K.V.K. Post, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk from the provisions of the Act and permitted the sale thereof by its owner Sri M. Narayanappa to the 5th Respondent Society. Sale-deed executed in pursuance of the impugned exemption order has also been called in question by the petitioners. The facts are few and may be stated immediately.2. An application was made by the 5th respondent-Society to the Government seeking exemption of the excess land held by Sri M. Narayanappa from the operation of the Act aforesaid and for permission to sell the same to the said respondent. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasekhar Vs. Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3366
ORDERRajendra Babu, J. 1. This Petition is filed under Article. 226 of the Constitution for a direction to the respondents not to insist upon the petitioner to produce stamp paper of value of Rs. 47,510/- to execute Lease-cum-Sale agreement and further direct the respondents to put the petitioner in possession of the house No. 200 in Rajamahal Vilas II Stage with immediate effect. The further prayer made by the petitioner is for a declaration that Article 5(d) to the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short the Act) is not applicable to Lease-cum-Sale Agreement executed under the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Buildings under Self-Financing Housing Scheme) Rules, 1982 (for short the Rules) or in the alternative to declare the said provision as ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature.2. The petitioner applied for allotment of a house under the Rules. A house was allotted to the petitioner. Though originally at the time of allotment the cost was estimat...
Tag this Judgment!Gundu Rao Vs. Gurrajachar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3196; 1996(2)KarLJ418
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. This is the defendants' Appeal against a judgment of reversal. Plaintiff had filed the present suit on 7.1.1970 for redemption of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession.2. Admittedly, plaintiff as owner had created an usufructuary mortgage over the suit property in favour of Gundurap - defendant No. 1 to secure a loan of Rs. 100/- taken by him which is evidenced by a Mortgage Deed dated 2.8.1935 (Exhibit P-1). As a consequence of this transaction defendant No. 1 as mortagee came into possession of the said property. One of the conditions embodied in the said Deed was that if the loan is not paid on expiry of eight years from the date of transaction, the said document will be treated as an absolute Deed of Sale (Shuddha Kraya Ratra). It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs could not redeem the property as per the stipulations in the Mortgage Deed. Consequently, the mortgagee sold the property to late Gujar Mallaiah, father of defendants 2 to 8 unde...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanthi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ495
S.A. Hakeem, J.1. This appeal by the insurer is directed against the judgment and award passed by M.A.C.T. IX, Bangalore, in M.V.C. No. 1097 of 1991. The contest in this appeal is only against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which according to the appellant is excessive. The appellant has also filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking relief to maintain and contest this appeal on all the grounds that are available to the insurer.2. It is not disputed that the owner had duly contested the claim before the Tribunal. The insurance company was also a party therein. However, he has not chosen to file an appeal either against the quantum or in respect of the actionable negligence, which has been held against him. A bald averment is made in the affidavit that the insured had colluded with the claimants and hence not come forward to contest the award. This, in our opinion, is not sufficient to entitle the insurer to maintain the appeal...
Tag this Judgment!imtiaz Ahmed Vs. Taha Export
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3410; 1995(5)KarLJ436
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J 1. This House Rent Revision Petition has been filed under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 challenging the Judgment and Order dated 19.9.95 passed by the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, South Range, Bangalore, rejecting the petitioners-applicants' application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a proceedings under Section 14 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as Act 22/61) for fixation of fair rent. The Petitioners-applicants moved an application to the effect that under the orders of this Court in Revision Nos. 389 and 613/94, the tenants had to make deposits of the rents but the tenant has committed default and he has not deposited the rent and he was in arrears for a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/-. The applicants prayed that the tenant be directed to deposit the said rent at the admitted rent of Rs. 15,000/- p.m. In case of non-compliance of direction to pay a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/-, the application u...
Tag this Judgment!Webb's Farm Mechanization (P.) Ltd. and others Vs. Official Liquidator ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant65; [1999]97CompCas956(Kar); ILR1995KAR2991; 1995(5)KarLJ608
M.L. Pendse, C.J. 1. The question which falls for consideration in these appeal referred to the Full Bench is of application of the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on application made under section 391 of the Act for amalgamation of two companies where the order is to be passed for dissolution without winding up of the transferor-company. 2. Webb's Sales and Service (P.) Ltd., Webb's Farm Mechanization (P.) Ltd., Webb's Agricultural and Automobile Industries (P.) Ltd., Webb's Agricultural and Automobile Service (P.) Ltd. and Webb's Method . (in liquidation) are companies comprising Webb's group of companies. The directors of all the companies are the same persons and the governing director on fall the group companies is Mrs. Shirley Webb. Mrs. Webb and her children are the shareholders of the companies. Webb's Method . was incorporated on September 2, 1985, but in view of the termination of contracts fo...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Machine Tools Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR732; 1996(5)KarLJ406
Murgod, J.1. This Appeal is preferred by defendant-3 in the Trial Court under Section 96 CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 7.11.1986 passed in O.S. No. 722 of 1982 by the learned First Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suit for Rs. 63,415-80ps. with interest against defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally but restricting the liability of the third defendant - appellant to an extent of Rs. 50,000/- only.2. The Appeal arises in the following circumstances :-Defendant-1 with defendant-2 as co-obligate raised a loan of Rs. 30,000/- from the plaintiff Canara Bank on 15.10.1977 repayable with interest for buying the machinery. The loan was repayable in 24 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 1250-00 each; promissory note and other documents were executed. Defendants 1 and 2 executed a hypothecation agreement hypothecating the existing machinery and the machines to be purchased. Third defendant who is the appellant before this Court, stood as a guarantor and execut...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »