Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR924; 1997(3)KarLJ101
P. Krishna Moorthy, J1. This Appeal is by the Writ Petitioner challenging the order of the Addl. Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, produced as Annexure 'C' dated 20.2.1993, This order was passed under Section 7 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The subject matter of this Writ Petition is 1 acre and 10 guntas of land which is ordered to be resumed from the petitioner by the order of the Tahsildar evidenced by Annexure 'C',3. The undisputed facts of this case are as follows:One Alladappa was the original haqdar of Thotti Office of Shivanahalli and Saneguruvanahalli Villages and 1 acre and 37 cents of land in Sy.No.36 of Saneguruvanahalli Village was one of the properties attached to the said Office. Alladappa had two sons viz., Malla and Linga. Malla was succeeded by one Kombamma and the other branch was succeeded by Bylayellamma. Respondents 2 and 3 represent the branch of Kombamma. According to the writ petitioner, he is in possess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR833
ORDERA.J. Sadashiva, J.1. In view of the principal question of law and the reliefs being one and the same, in all these petitions, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. Writ Petition Nos. 9357/96, 10750/96, 10630/96 and 11374/96 are originally filed for quashing the Notification dated March 13, 1996 issued by the Director of Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology, the first respondent in all these petitions, inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Professors in various subjects and, for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion and to prohibit the respondent to resort to appointment to those posts by direct recruitment.3. Writ Petition No. 36710/95 is filed for a writ of mandamus to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of lecturer to that of an Assistant Professor in Cardiology as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules produced at Annexure-A and the decision of the Sub-Committe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1183; 1997(3)KarLJ120
M.Venkatesh Murthy, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is against the order in Writ Petition No. 41682 of 1993 dismissing the Writ Petition challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Belgaum Sub-division, Belgaum in RTS.AP. 65/93 dated 5-11-1993.2. The Writ Petitioner is the son of A.G. Kulkarni who purchased 5 guntas and 4 annas of land in Survey No. 73/2/4 of Anagol Village, Belgaum Taluk under registered Sale Deed dated 25.5.1956. The petitioner claiming that his name has not been recorded in the RTC., in respect of 5 guntas and 4 annas of land, made an application to the Tahsildar, Belgaum for necessary correction of the record of rights in terms of the Sale Deed dated 25.5.1956. The Tahsildar gave notice to the third respondent herein who was the vendor and conducted a summary enquiry and found that the land claimed by the petitioner was in his possession and directed the entering of his name in respect of Survey No. 73/2/4 of Anagol village. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tahs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1402
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. This group of Writ Petitions had been heard together because, a common question of law arises in ail these cases. These petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioner is common in all these petitions. Petitioner is a proprietory concern and registered both under Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') and Central Sales Tax Act (C.S.T. Act for short). Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of Electrical Goods including transformers. The assessment years in question in these cases are 1989-90, 1992-93 and 1993-94.3. During the assessment years in question, petitioner had undertaken the manufacture of transformers to M/s. Kirloskar Company, Bangalore. After such manufacture, petitioner has effected sale of such goods which are liable to tax under the Act, to the brand name holder namely M/s. Kirloskar Company. The sale of such goods by the manufacture of the brand name holder is deemed to be 'not a sale' by the first dealer liable to tax u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1997]107STC290(Kar)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Petitioner is carrying on business as wholesale kirana merchants and registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short). Petitioner is also a dealer in 'sugar-candy'. Petitioner is assessed to tax at 4 per cent single point under item No. 18A of Part S of the Second Schedule to the Act, for the assessment year 1992-93, on their sale of sugar-candy. Petitioner did not challenge this order by filing statutory appeal as provided under section 20 of the Act, though that is the normal remedy available to them in law. On the other hand, he has filed this petition challenging the correctness or otherwise of the levy of tax on 'sugar-candy' as unconstitutional. But I must admit that while hearing the matter, I did not find any trace of any constitutional question any where in this case; justifying petitioner approaching this Court under article 226 of the Constitution, instead of following the alternate, effective, efficacious reme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ322
1. With usual allegations and counter allegations of usurping each other's share in the joint property, has brought stated to be respectable family, in the Court litigating over a matter apparently having not much of the controversy. The litigation has been stretched to various forms by giving it judicial twists. Scores of cases are stated to be pending between the parties in various Courts in the State. All efforts made for reconciliation or at least finding out an agreed amicable way of settling the disputes have proved futile. Under the cloak of technicalities and taking advantage of the procedural wrangles, the parties to this litigation have left no stone unturned to allegedly frustrate each other's rights in the property which was earlier jointly owned and possessed by the parties, all being members of one family. Most of the facts are admitted, but the mode of resolving the disputes is in controversy. The only son in the family, namely, Shri M.V. Ganesh Prasad is in confrontatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2003]133STC356(Kar)
ORDERH.L. Dutta, J.1. This group of writ petitions had been heard together, because, a common question of law arises in all these cases. These petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioner is common in all these petitions. Petitioner is a proprietary concern and registered both under Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') and Central Sales Tax Act ('CST Act', for short). Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of electrical goods including transformers. The assessment years in question in these cases are 1989-90, 1992-93 and 1993-94.3. During the assessment years in question, petitioner had undertaken the manufacture of transformers to M/s. Kirloskar Company, Bangalore. After such manufacture, petitioner has effected sale of such goods which are liable to tax under the Act, to the brand name holder namely, M/s. Kirloskar Company. The sale of such goods by the manufacturer to the brand name holder is deemed to be 'not a sale' by the first dealer liable to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2000]102CompCas175(Kar)
P. Krishna Moorthy, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff. The dispute is in regard to interest payable on the mortgage amount after the institution of suit.2. The plaintiff-bank advanced an amount of Rs. 2,40,000 on term loan and an amount of Rs. 1,70,000 under cash credit loan with interest at 15 per cent, quarterly rest in the former and at 14 per cent, quarterly rest in the latter.3. There was an equitable mortgage of certain properties belonging to the defendants as security for the loan. The suit was instituted for realisation of an amount of Rs. 7,01,591.76 including interest due as on the date of suit.4. Though various contentions were raised by the defendants, all of them were overruled and ultimately the trial court passed a preliminary decree for an amount of Rs. 7,01,591.76. The court further ordered that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay interest at 14 per cent, per annum on the principal amount on cash credit loan of Rs. 1,70,000 from the date of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant151; [1998]94CompCas123(Kar); 1997(3)KarLJ61
H.N. Narayan, J.1. The petitioner has filed a petition under sections 31 and 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, requesting the learned District Judge to pass a personal decree against the respondents with interest and costs amounting to Rs. 11,75,164. The office of the learned District Judge, Bellary, has raised an objection that in view of the general circular issued by the High Court of Karnataka in Circular No. 1 of 1995, dated February 18, 1995, the application is liable to be filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, and placed the matter before the learned District Judge for suitable orders to return the papers for presentation before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The learned District Judge, upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has come to the conclusion that the Debt Recovery Tribunal established under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, has got jurisdiction as the amount sought to be recovered in the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1997CriLJ4285
Saldanha, J.1. The allegation in this case once again is of matrimonial cruelty and dowry death. Deceased Kusuma was married to A-1 on 16-3-1986 and it is alleged that certain demands were made by A-1 and his family members at the time of the marriage particularly in relation to jewellery and certain items of property. These demands were met except for the fact that two items viz., a gold chain and a pair of bangles were not gifted to Kusuma by her parents at the time when the marriage took place. It is alleged by the prosecution that A-1 and his family members, his mother, his father, as also his brother, used to ill-treat and torture Kusuma on the ground that her parents had not given these items of gold jewellery. The situation got rather bad and the girl kept complaining to her parents and finally the dispute was referred to the panchayath. The decision taken was that the girl's parents would provide these two items of jewellery as soon as they could raise necessary funds for the s...
Tag this Judgment!