Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1998)DMC254; ILR1997KAR609; 1998(2)KarLJ671
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. The strained husband and wife who are parties to this appeal, are in litigation which is pending in the Family Court at Bangalore. The appellant/wife has filed a suit for grant of various reliefs including the relief of maintenance. Upon her application, the Family Court had granted the temporary injunction against the respondent-husband restraining him from alienating the two plaint-schedule properties or subjecting them to any encumbrance pending disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the order of temporary injunction the respondent-husband filed a writ petition in this Court with prayer for quashing the order of the Family Court. Vide the order impugned in this appeal the learned Single Judge modified the order of the Family Courtwith direction that the said injunction will continue with respect to the residential house of the respondent-husband, but in regard to the shop he was permitted to sell the same subject to the condition of deposit and production of ori...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1971
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J. 1. The only point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that since the offence complained of is under Section 395 I.P.C. which is an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions under the provisions of Section 395(2) I.P.C. it is mandatory for the Court taking cognizance to examine the complainant and all the witnesses on oath. From the record, petitioner's learned advocate demonstrates that this has not been done and he therefore contends that the taking of cognizance is faulty. The respondent's learned advocate submitted that if one were to look at Section 202 in its entity as also several of the reported decisions, the position that emerges is that the discretion is left to the trial Court to record the substances of the charge for purposes of deciding on the question of issue of process. Basically, what is contended is that this is not the stage where the trial has commenced and therefore if the complainant was examined and the Court came to the conclu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
L. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties. Issue Rule. Petitioners 1 and 2 were the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha respectively of the Neralur Grama Panchayat. On 7th September, 1996 more than one-third of the total number of members of the said panchayat gave a written notice to the third respondent under Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short 'the flutes') to move a motion of no-confidence against the petitioners. In pursuance thereof, notices were issued under Sub-rule(2) of Rule-3 of the Rules to the elected members of the said Grama Panchayat convening a meeting for consideration of the said motion at the office of the Grama Panchayat on 10th October, 1996. The said meeting was presided over by the third respondent. Out of the nineteen elected members of the Grama Panchayat, fifteen members participated in the meeting; fourteen members voted for the motion and one m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(4)KarLJ178
ORDER1. The petitioners are the students of postgraduate degree course in medical sciences conducted by the respondent-Karnataka University. They had joined the course subsequent to the academic year 1992-93. They have approached this Court for seeking a direction upon the respondents to grant exemption of one year to them in post-graduate course undertaken by them.2. The question raised by the petitioners regarding the power of the University to grant exemption of one year to the petitioners, thereby reducing duration of the PG Course to only two years needs to be examined, keeping in view the imperative directions of the Supreme Court given in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Others v Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Others , the respective provisions contained in the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act') and the relevant ordinance and regulations framed by the University in respect of the said PG Course.3. The Supreme Court having noticed that the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1997]107STC283(Kar)
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. Shri Shivayogiswamy, learned Government Pleader, is directed to take notice for the respondent. 2. The petitioner in this petition claims to be the sole distributor of fragrance mats and mosquito mats manufactured by M/s. Sonic Electrochem Private Ltd., 38, Patel Nagar, Indore. 3. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the clarifications dated 12th October, 1989 and 9th January, 1990, copies of which have been produced as annexures B and C, respectively, issued by the respondent. 4. In clarification, annexure B, the respondent-Commissioner pursuant to the clarification sought by the petitioner by means of his application dated 9th August, 1989, a copy of which has been produced as annexure A, had clarified that the insecticide mats are liable for tax at the rate of 10 per cent at first sale point under entry No. 11 of Part M of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In clarifica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2001]122STC164(Kar)
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. These matters arise under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89. The petitioner before us is a manufacturer of paper cartons and playing cards. For the purpose of its manufacture, it purchases paper boards and duplex boards from outside the State and brings the same into local area. For the assessment years in question, the petitioner filed returns under the Act claiming exemption with respect to paper boards and duplex boards on the basis that the expression 'raw material, component parts and inputs' under Explanation II to entry 16B of the Schedule to the Act excludes 'paper'. Thus, it was contended that no tax could be levied under the Act now. The assessing authority did not agree with this contention for all these years. Matters were carried in appeal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority also af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2002)177CTR(Kar)10
OrderS. Rajendra Babu, J.The question referred for our opinion is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the commission paid to the agents should not be treated as sales promotion expenses so as to attract the provisions of section 37(3A) for disallowance?'2. The assessee for the assessment year 1984-85 had paid a sum of Rs. 4,26,386 by way of sale commission. In the assessment this expenditure was disallowed in the light of section 37(3A) on the basis that such amount would amount to sale promotion. The matter was carried in appeal. The appellate authority held that the commission paid could not be treated as sale promotions and granted the relief as contemplated under section 37(3A) of the Act. When the matter was carried in second appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal took the view that the expenditure had been incurred on sales already effected by the agents and that it could not be treated as sales promo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998(79)FLR519]; 1998(4)KarLJ263
ORDER1. This petition is field under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the award dated 17-5-1990 passed in Reference No. ID 180 of 1986 (Annexure-A) and pass such other reliefs.2. The brief facts of the case are: the 1st respondent was appointed by the petitioner as TTR driver on daily wages by an Order No. YG/F. 35/6711-13, dated 21-1-1981 for a period of 3 months subject to certain conditions incorporated therein. He reported for duty on 21-1-1981 and was driving jeep bearing No. MER 3013. On 29-4-1981 at 10.05 a.m. the jeep met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent. The Police Sub-Inspector, Ambika Nagar after conducting investigation filed a charge sheet against the respondent before the JMFC Court, Haliyal. The driver was arrested by the police and was later released on bail. On 13-5-1981 he was terminated from service. Subsequently the Criminal C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999ACJ1484
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the present appellant, i.e., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., which has been respondent No. 5 in the main claim petition, challenging the order passed by Mr. V. Jaganathan, Addl. Distt. Judge, M.A.C.T. II, Mandya, disposing of the application under Section 140 of the Act and ordering that all the petitioners together are entitled for interim compensation of Rs. 25,000 under Section 140 of the Act with simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of realisation. The Tribunal further found that the respondents, i.e., the owner and insurer of the tractor as well as the owner and insurer of the trailer are jointly and severally responsible to pay the sum of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioners.2. In application it has been alleged that on 9.7.1991 the deceased Shanthu was going through 'A' Circle, Malavalli Town towards Pete and he was moving on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1071
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. The petitioners herein challenge Annexure-H order issued by the 1st respondent permitting the 5th Respondent to use the electrical poles of the 4th respondent Board for the purpose of laying their Cable TV Network. 'Shorn of detailed argumentative pleadings, the brief facts of the case are as follows:2. The petitioners are established Cable TV Network operators in the cities of Bangalore and Mysore since about one year. The 1st petitioner applied for permission to the 1st respondent for the use of electricity poles for the purpose of laying cable wires. In response to the said application, the 2nd respondent sent Annexure-B communication intimating that the 1st respondent has constituted a Committee to examine the request for the use of the electricity poles of the 4th respondent and that the said Committee would examine the representation of the petitioner and others. It called upon the petitioners to furnish the information noted therein. On 21-9-1995, the...
Tag this Judgment!