Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]110STC269(Kar)
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioners, in this batch of petitions, are all dealers registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. In these petitions, they have prayed for striking down entry 25 of the Sixth Schedule appended to the Act on the ground that the same is beyond the competence of the State Legislature. They have also called in question the correctness of either the orders of assessment made by the assessing authorities or the orders passed by the assessing authorities rejecting their application for rectification of the order of assessment filed under section 25A of the Act or the proposition notices issued.3. Since the questions that arise for consideration in these petitions are similar, all the petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.4. All the petitioners are carrying on business of taking photographs and supplying prints thereof, making enlargements from negatives given...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(6)KarLJ570
ORDER1. These writ petitions are filed with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for regularisation of unauthorised occuoccupancy of three items of lands.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kiran Gangannavar appearing along with Sri Madanmohan M. Khannur. The respondents though served with notices had remained absent. Therefore, the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri S.S. Guttal, is directed to take notice for the said respondents. I also heard him.3. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder:That the petitioner was at in respect of 4 acres 9 guntas in S. No. 220, 37 guntas in S. No. 276 and 1 acre 2 guntas in S. No. 277 of Mishrikote Village, Kalaghatagi Taluk; that he being an illiterate, out of ignorance had not applied for grant of occuoccupancy right before the jurisdictional Land Tribunal. However, even to this date, he is an occupant of the said extents of land and that therefore, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(1999)ACC631; 1999ACJ867; 1998(4)KarLJ162
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri C.K. Kambeyanda.2. The only point that has been urged in this petition is that Insurance Company has wrongly been made liable for payment of compensation in M.V.C. No. 477 of 1985. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the claimant-injured as per pleadings in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the 4th respondent, that is the Insurance Company it has not been liable to pay any damages as far as his person and his vehicle have been concerned, since the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in the Lorry bearing No. GDS-5859, on the date of accident. Learned Counsel further contended that under the agreement to buy the vehicle, the claimant had acquired the possession and control of the vehicle and there is no dispute about that he was in possession of the Lorry concerned and in view of these facts and circumstances, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify or to pay any damages, because he did not come within the definition of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR866
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner, in these petitions, is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Entry Tax Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. In these petitions, it has called in question the correctness of the order of assessment dated April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1983, April 1, 1983 to September 30, 1983, October 1, 1983 to September 30, 1984 and October 1, 1984 to September 30, 1985, copies of which have been produced as annexures A to D respectively, passed by the assessing authority and the order dated April 8, 1988, a copy of which has been produced as annexure E, passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Commercial Taxes, i.e., the first appellate authority, rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioner against the orders of assessment and also the order dated March 19, 1990, a copy of which has been produced as annexure F, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') confirming th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR537; 1998(1)KarLJ162
G. Patri Basavana Goud, J.1. Writ Appeal Nos. 24 to 27 of 1996 have arisen out of Writ Petition Nos. 17727 to 17730 of 1993 filed respectively by Smt. Kathiza, Sri K. Moidin, Sri K. Moidin and Sri Asraf against the District Magistrate, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, and the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. Petitioners in the said writ petitions had applied for grant of stage carriage permits on certain routes. The RTA by its resolution dated 7-5-1993, rejected their prayer for grant of stage carriage permits taking note of the notification issued by the District Magistrate dated 6-4-1993 under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) read with Rule 221-A(5) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ('Rules', for short), restricting further entry of mofussil buses to Hampanakatta area in the city of Mangalore, in pursuance of the permits to be obtained henceforth. Petitioners in the said writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1466
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. This revision petition, filed under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter, 'the Act'), is directed against the order dated August 24, 1995 passed by the Appellate Tribunal. By the said order, the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes upholding the provisional assessment orders passed by the assessing authority under section 12B(2) of the Act for the months of April to August, 1994.FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE 2. The petitioner is a public limited company with registered office at Calcutta and corporate office at Bangalore. Sometime in 1991-92, it had set up a new industrial unit for blending and packaging of tea at the industrial area in Belur (Dharwad Growth Centre), Dharwad, by investing over Rs. 1.6 crores in plant and machinery. The said unit commenced commercial production from May 6, 1993.3. The said unit of the petitioner-company was registered as a 'new industrial unit' with the Directorate of Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The present appellant-company had preferred writ petitions challenging the proposition notices pertaining to the months of April, May and June, 1993 (annexures H, J and K) issued under section 12-B(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act') and the proposition notice for making a regular assessment under section 12(3) of the Act for the year 1992-93 (annexure P). The writ jurisdiction of this Court was invoked because of the reason that the petitioner had an apprehension that its claim for exemption from sales tax on the finished products, namely, 'packaged blended tea' produced at its Dharwad unit may be disallowed pursuant to Commissioner's circular dated November 27, 1993. 2. The said writ petitions were dismissed by the learned single Judge on the ground of availability of alternative remedies. But the present writ appeals were heard on merits and were dismissed by an order dated June 13, 1994 which is reported in : ILR1994KAR1848 (Lipton India...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR419
ORDER1. This is a plaintiffs revision petition. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 377 of 1997 against the respondent-defendant for a permanent injunction restraining him from encroaching upon the suit property. He also prayed fora decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore the compound wall belonging to the plaintiff to its original condition at his cost. The suit property is a strip of land measuring 5' east to west and 124' north to south situated in between the properties of the parties.2. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application I.A. I for an order of temporary injunction. The application having been allowed, the defendant preferred an appeal against that order in M.A. 28 of 1997. The Lower Appellate Court, by an order dated 19-9-1997 allowed that appeal and reversed the order passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by that order, the plaintiff has preferred this revision petition.3. The plaintiffs case in brief is as foll...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1588; 1998(4)KarLJ229
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 5-3-1990 passed in Appeal No. 13 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Kundapur. In passing the said order, the Appellate Authority had confirmed the order dated 28-1-1989 passed by the Land Tribunal, whereby it had corrected the claim of the respondent No. 1 in respect of Sy. No. 375/4A in the place of the original claim in Sy. No. 375/4D. 2. I heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Sri R.V. Jayaprakash and Sri S.R. Hegde Hudlamane for the respondent No. 1. I have also perused the records. 3. The instant revision requires narration of necessary facts. They are in brief as hereunder:That the respondent 1 had filed Form 7 under Section 48-A of the Land Reforms Act, henceforth in brief as the 'Act', claiming occupancy right in respect of 71 cents in Sy. No. 64-1, 80 cents in Sy. No. 64-2, 90 cents in Sy. No. 64-5, 35 cents in Sy. No. 64-4 and 4 acres 54 cents in Sy. No. 375-4D. That...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(5)KarLJ40
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit based on money, was decreed by the Trial Court. But, on appeal dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the second appeal.2. The plaintiff claims to have lent Rs. 3,500/- on 5-3-1980 and according to the plaintiff, the defendant has signed in the Signature Book on that day. The defendant denied transaction and signature as well. But, contended that he had transaction earlier with the plaintiff and the said transactions have been settled and the account between them has been finalised and closed for ever.3. When the signature was disputed, the Trial Court after considering the evidence and documents produced, compared the signature. After such comparison, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that it is the signature of the defendant that is found in the suit documents and decreed the suit. The Appellate Court merely commented upon the Trial Court about the comparison of the signature and held that it is not possible for him to have suc...
Tag this Judgment!