Karnataka Court July 1996 Judgments
Raja Motors Vs. Additional Deputy Commissioner of Entry Taxes-cum-comm ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3028
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The only question involved in the present writ petitions is as whether the parts and accessories of tractors are exigible to tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Entry Tax Act, 1979. 2. The petitioner herein is engaged in the business of automobile parts accessories including those of tractors. It is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, as also the Karnataka Entry Tax Act, 1979. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proposition notices dated January 2, 1995 being annexures B and C issued by the first respondent in respect of assessments made under the Entry Tax Act for the periods 1992-93 and 1993-94 to the extent the said respondent has proposed to levy tax on the parts and accessories of tractors. 3. Section 3, which is charging section, provides that there shall be levied and collected a tax on entry of any goods specified in the First Schedule into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein at such rates not exceedin...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. R.R. Khanolkar Vs. Madhavi Arun Kamath and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR800; 1997(1)KarLJ422
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. A clear cut point of law which has some rather unusual and interesting facets has been canvassed by the disputing parties in this Civil Revision Petition. Only the relevant facts necessary for the decision of the issue are being set out by me. The petitioner before me is the landlord of the property situated at No. 157. Camp; Belgaum. His case is that one Arun Kamath was his tenant upto the year 1977 when Arun Kamath died. The wife of the deceased-tenant by the name of Shoba Kamath along with her three minor daughter continued in occupation of the premises. In the year 1983 the petitioner-landlord instituted H.R.C. No. 399/83 against Shoba Kamath principally on the ground that she had acquired sufficient and suitable alternate accommodation and that therefore, the landlord was entitled to recover possession of the premises. The suit was contested vigorously by Shoba Kamath and ultimately, a decree came to be passed against her. The matter was carried higher but...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Ksrtc Vs. Pandu S/O Loku
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: II(1998)ACC43; 1998ACJ1389; ILR1997KAR1259; 1997(2)KarLJ559
M.P. Chinnappa, J.1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Awards passed by the M.A.C.T. & Dist. Judge, Gulbarga, the appellants have preferred their respective appeals questioning the correctness of the Judgment and the Award in each case.2. The brief facts leading to these 15 appeals are that on 12-5-86 at about 12.15 p.m the K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. MYF 6056 was being driven by one Basappa of Humnabad Depot in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed. When the bus was so passing near Channur bridge on Humnabad Chincholi road it turned turtle and the passengers sustained injuries. Therefore, the injured persons lodged claims under Section 110-(A) of the M.V. Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them. One of the persons succumbed to the injuries and therefore, his legal representative lodged a claim claiming compensation for the death of the deceased.3. During the pendency of the case, a Lok Adalat was held in Gulbarga District and all these matters were settle...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Hanuman Silks and Etc. Vs. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Kant134; ILR1996KAR3384; 1996(7)KarLJ277
ORDER1. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, the first respondent herein, is a statutory body established under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ('the Act' for short). It has established and developed an industrial layout in Chickaballapur known as Chickaballapur Industrial Area.2. The Board allotted Plot No. 1A and 1B in the said layout each measuring 4122 Sq.M. to the two petitioners. The Board issued confirmatory letters of allotment to the petitioners 4/6-2-1993 and 12-1-1993 respectively. The Board delivered possession of the said plots to the petitioners on 6-2-1993and 24-6-1993. The Board entered into lease-cum-sale agreements with the petitioners on 18-8-1993 and 19-8-1993. By clause 2(p)(1) of the said agreements, the petitioners covenanted with the Board to complete the civil construction work and erection of the factory within 12 months, and to commence production within 24 months, from the date of confirmatory letter of allotment. Clause 4 of th...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. Machaish Vs. Ajjittira S. Mandanna and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Kant194; 1997(1)KarLJ438
1. This is defendant's second appeal filed under S. 100 of the C.P.C.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit O. S.No. 288/1978 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Madikeri, Kodagu, against thedefendant for declaration that the plaintiffsare entitled to manage Sri Rama TouringTalkies belonging to the defendant till the endof April 1979. . I ;3. The plaintiffs further prayed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the possession and management of the above said touring talkies till the end of April 1979.4. Alternatively, the plaintiffs prayed for damages of Rs. 10,000/- against the defendant.5. The sum and substance of the plaintiffs' case is that the defendant, having allowed the plaintiffs to manage the talkies as per Ex. P-1, has been trying to interfere with the plaintiffs' management of the touring talkies.6. The defendant has admitted Ex. P-1. But he has denied the case of the plaintiffs. He has stated in the written statement that the agreement Ex. P.-...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Bellam Thimmappa and Others Vs. Karnataka Slum Clearance Board and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Kant256; ILR1997KAR59; 1997(1)KarLJ282
ORDER1. This writ petition calls in question an order dated 5th of Sept 1992 passed by the third-Respondent, declaring an area measuring 2 Acres and 53 cents underlying T.S. No. 8, as a Slum under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Slum Areas Improvement and Clearance Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The petitioners are owners of land underlying Sy. No. 363C/3a, 363C/3b and Town Sy. No. 8 measuring in all nearly 8 Acres situate within the Town Municipal limits of Bellary. By a Notification dated 31-8-1989 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary, the aforesaid areas were proposed to be declared as slum areas under Section 3 of the Act. Objections to the proposal appear to have been filed by the petitioners, after consideration whereof, the Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 26th of July, 1991, declared the area underlying Sy. No. 363 C/3b measuring 5 Acres only as a Slum. In so far as the remaining area is concerned, the Deputy Commissioner, observed that even though ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnappa Vs. Thoppaiah Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ188; ILR1996KAR3249; 1996(6)KarLJ674
ORDER1. Revision petitioner calls in question the legality and the correctness of issue of notices to him and six others by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Crl. Misc. 1143/92 on 20-8-1992 on an application by the respondent herein under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. praying the court to conduct preliminary enquiry, record its findings and punish the petitioner and six others for an offence under Section 195 R/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. Thopaiah Setty, respondent herein is the applicant. Krishnappa revision petitioner, Sanna Setty and five others are the respondents in the application. 3. Few facts leading to the presentation of this revision may be stated thus : On a complaint by Krishnappa for the alleged attempt to murder Sanna Setty, Sub-Inspector of Police in Srirampuram police station registered a case against Thopaiah Setty, his son T. Nagaraja and 2 others continued investigation and thereafter charge-sheeted them for offences under Section 341, 307 R/w 34 of IPC. The case was c...
Tag this Judgment!Swamygowda and Others, Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)932; 1997CriLJ423; ILR1997KAR321; 1997(1)KarLJ688
J. Eswara Prasad, J.1. Criminal Appeal Number 185 of 1994 is by Accused Nos. 1 to 22 against their conviction under Ss. 148, 324, 326, 341 and 302, I.P.C. and the sentences imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mysore in S.C. No. 87/1989. Criminal Appeal No. 494/94 is by the State against the acquittal of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 who were accused Nos. 23 to 29 before the Sessions Court for offences punishable under Ss, 143, 144, 147, 148, 341 r/w. Section 149, I.P.C., S. 326 r/w. S. 149, I.P.C. and 302 r/w. S. 149, I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :- Respondent No. 2 is the leader of the Congress Party and was opposed to Kengegowda-deceased No. 1 who belonged to Janatha Party and was the Pradhan of Karimuddenahalli. Deceased No. 2-Gondegowda is the younger brother of Kengegowda and he was the President of the Milk Producers Co-operative Society and both the brothers were leaders of Janatha Party. During the elections to the Mandal Panchayat held in the year 1988, de...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Rao G. Vs. Nagamani V.R. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ991Kant
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J. 1. The arguments of the Learned Counsel on both sides are heard.2. This revision is by the defendant in O.S.No. 10030/1992 pending on its file, directing Respondent No. 2 herein to withhold the Gratuity amount of Rs. 20,000 payable to petitioner until further orders.3. The undisputed facts leading to this revision are as stated under:Respondent No. 1 filed his said suit i.e. O.S. No. 10030/1992, for recovery of money frompetitioner who was an employee of Respondent No. 2 factory. During the pendency of the said suit Respondent No. 1/ plaintiff made an application before the Trial Court for the direction to Respondent No. 2 to withhold payment of the Gratuity amount payable to Respondent 1. Due to inadvertence, instead of withholding the payment of the said amount to petitioner, Respondent No. 2 deposited in Trial Court the Gratuity amount of Rs. 20,000/-payable to the petitioner. Thereafter, an application was made by Respondent No. 2 before the Trial Court prayi...
Tag this Judgment!Sri G. Narayana Rao Vs. V.R. Nagmani and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2640]; ILR1996KAR3246; 1996(6)KarLJ671
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J. 1. The arguments of the Learned Counsel on both sides are heard.2. This revision is by the defendant in O.S.No. 10030/92 pending on its file, directing Respondent No. 2 herein to with-hold the Gratuity amount of Rs. 20,000/- payable to petitioner until further orders.3. The undisputed facts leading to this revision are as stated under:Respondent No. 1 filed his said suit ie. O.S.No. 10030/92, for recovery of money from petitioner who was an employee of Respondent No. 2-factory. During the pendency of the said suit respondent No. 1/plaintiff made an application before the Thai Court for the direction to Respondent No. 2 to withhold payment of the Gratuity amount payable to Respondent-1. Due to inadvertance, instead of withholding the payment of the said amount to petitioner, Respondent No. 2 deposited in Trial Court the Gratuity amount of Rs. 20,000/- payable to the petitioner. Thereafter, an application was made by Respondent No. 2 before the Trial Court praying ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »