Karnataka Court March 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shetty Ice Factory Vs. Gen Manager Dist. Industrial Centre
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR1942
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. Petitioner established a small scale industrial unit and the department of industries and commerce issued a certificate dated 20.10.1989 certifying that this is a new industrial unit and started commercial production on 9.8.1989 and first sale invoice is also of the same dated. The Government of Karnataka have issued notifications for giving incentives to new industrial unit and one such notification was dated 30.6.1969. This notification was superceded by another notification dated 16.10.1981. In the year 1988 the entire scheme was re-examined by the Government and notification dated 5.12.1988 was issued giving new incentives and concessions to industrial units. Benefit under this notification was available with effect from 1.4.1988. In para IX (c) it was specified that this incentives and concessions shall be applicable only for new industries whose investment has taken place on or after 1.4.1988 and subject to the condition that they have availed no such conc...
Bhola Nath T. Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tri ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ1128Kant
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. Though several facts have been exposed in this case, the dispute lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner-worker was working as a Traffic Assistant with the Indian Airlines. He was appointed on September 27, 1979 and was confirmed on March 27, 1980. On the particular day, i.e., on November 18, 1984, he was working as a Traffic Assistant at Bangalore Airport incharge of I. C. 525, a Flight taking off from Bangalore to Hyderabad. The allegation is that at that time two persons namely M/s. Ahamed and Ramdas came to the Airport without tickets and after paying Rs. 800/- to the petitioner, they were allowed to travel to Hyderabad clandestinely after collecting the Boarding Passes from the petitioner. These Boarding Passes used for I.C. 525 Flight from Bangalore to Hyderabad were intended to be used by two other passengers, namely, Mr. Amrith Thakkur and Mr. Y.K. Goel for Flight I.C. 404 operating on the same day. Annexure-C is the charge-sheet framed against the ...
M.R. Narayan Vs. Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ576
ORDER1. Heard the petitioner who is an Advocate of this Court as well. Petitioner has sought the following reliefs.-2. The issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or order of direction as the Court deems fit, whereby the respondent be directed to regularise the schedule property of the petitioner after collecting the necessary charges in accordance with law and to further direct the respondents not to demolish the schedule property of the petitioner and has further sought for grant of such other reliefs as this Court deems fit.3. The petitioner claims himself to be the absolute owner and to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the residential House No. 29 owned by him existing on Sy. No. 53/2-C (converted vide Order No. B. dis. ALN. SR. 483-73-74, dated 24-2-1973 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, and Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk and Certificate No. ALN.SR. 723 of 1973-74, dated 2-4-1974) situated at Sarakki Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangal...
The Director, Maintenance, Department of Telecom, Government of India, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Kant335; ILR1998KAR2229; 1998(4)KarLJ506
ORDER1. The validity of motor vehicles tax under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 has been assailed in this writ petition on the ground that the vehicle is the property of Union of India under Article 285 of the Constitution of India. Article 285 of the Constitution are as under.--'The properties of the Union shall save insofar as the Parliament may by law otherwise prove be except from all taxes imposed by a State or by any authority within a State.Nothing in clause (1) shall until Parliament by law otherwise provides prevent, any authority within a State from levying any tax on any property of the Union to which such property was immediately before the commencement of this Constitution liable or treated as liable, so long as that tax continues to be levied in that State'.2. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the exemption was given to the Government vehicles vide order dated 2nd May, 1958, but the same has been withdrawn vide notification...
Revanappa Vs. Muniyappa (Deceased) by L.R. and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3021; 1998(6)KarLJ47
ORDER1. The respondent herein instituted O.S. No. 50 of 1960 on the file of the Munsiff, Badami for declaration of title to the land measuring 5 acres and 28 guntas and in Survey No. 102/2 of Nandikeshwara Village, Badami Taluk against one, Kallappa, alleging that said Kallappa was a tresspasser and that he had no right to remain in possession of the property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit but the Civil Judge, Bagalkot, by his judgment and decree, in RA No. 56 of 1986, dated 8th August, 1974 allowed the appeal and granted a decree for possession of 5 acres of land in the eastern portion of the said survey number. Meanwhile, the petitioner herein filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights to the land in question on the ground that he has been in lawful possession of the land from 1964-65 having been let into possession by Balappa Badiger, the defendant in the suit.2. The Land Tribunal recorded evidence, and conferred occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner herein holding on th...
Balagouda Alagouda Patil and Others Vs. Babasaheb Ramagouda Patil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR831; 1998(6)KarLJ13
1. The defendants are the appellants, the suit for partition and separate possession was dismissed by the Trial Court, but came to be decreed by the First Appellate Court. Hence the defendants are before this Court in the second appeal.2. Facts of the case leading to the present appeal, in brief are as under.-The propositus Alagouda had 2 sons by name Malagouda and Ramagouda; Malagouda and Ramagouda constituted joint family and they were in joint possession of suit land R.S. No. 62/1 measuring 5 Acres 18 guntas and R.S. No. 62/2 measuring 5 Acres 19 guntas as tenants from the time of the father. Both Malagouda and Ramagouda died in jointness; Plaintiffs case is that he represents branch of Ramagouda and defendants 1 to 4 represent the branch of Malagouda; that occupancy rights are granted jointly in their favour; that without actual partition by metes and bounds, they are cultivating their respective share separately; that since about 4 years his relations with defendants are strained ...
Medinova Diagnostic Services Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2069
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. Petitioner is a Diagnostic center rendering the services of laboratory test, viz., Bio Chemistry, Clinical pathology, Micro-biology, etc.,Notice dated 7.11.1989 was issued to the petitioner under Section 23 of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979, in respect of purchase of X-ray unit from outside India, for liability under the Act. It was also mentioned that the goods which are imported by the petitioner are not scheduled goods, and x-ray unit is an industrial machinery, and the petitioner was considered liable, The receipts for developing X-ray for the customers was considered liable for works contract. The petitioner filed his objections to the notice. Thereafter, in the endorsement dtd. 17.11.1989 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, it was found that the contract of X-ray photos is a works contract and under Section 2(viii) a person who is engaged in the business of transfer of property in goods . involved in the execution of works...
The State Vs. Lakshmidhar Das and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2839
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This appeal preferred by the State of Karnataka is directed against a judgment dated 29-12-1986 rendered by the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in S.C. No. 113/82. The two accused were charged with having committed murder and dacoity at the residential premises of Amrutlal Sethi which incidentally was situated on the 3rd floor of the very building in which his factory and office were located. The allegation was that accused No. 1 was an employee of the factory and that he is alleged to have entered the residence of the deceased on the night between 1-7-1982 and 2-7-1982 and brutally murdered the deceased by assaulting him on the head with a cast iron hammer which is M.O. 19. The accused No. 1 is alleged to have decamped with a large amount of cash and proceeded to his native place in Orissa. The deceased not having been seen for several days, and the premises being locked from the outside, his son-in-law had the lock opened on 5-7-1982 w...
Nagappayya Bhat and Others Vs. Maharajaswamy Varaha Devaru of Sri Maha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2313; 1998(4)KarLJ186
1. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs and their family are entitled both by custom and by hereditary right to the perquisite of performing the panchakajjaya seva attached to the office of Keelu Shanti Archakas in the 1st defendant temple and for consequential relief of a perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant temple, its trustees and all persons claiming through or under them from interfering in any way with the performance of panchakajjaya seva by them. They also sought for setting aside the order of the 4th defendant (Commissioner of H.R. and C.E.) Bangalore, dated 11-9-1969 and also for ancillary relief.2. The material allegations are that the 1st defendant is an ancient Hindu Public Temple situated in Maravanthe village of Kundapura Taluk in Dakshina Kannada District. It is one of the oldest temple and governed under the provisions of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, ...
P. Viswanatham Vs. Bangalore Club and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2016; 1998(4)KarLJ401
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri K,S. Hanumantha Rao and Sri Mohandas N. Hegde, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The only question that arises in this case is whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration that his removal from defendant's club is illegal simply on the ground that suit is badly framed on account of non-joinder of members of the club and whether the Court should have entered into merits of the case in absence of necessary parties or the Court should have decided the issue whether the necessary party had not been impleaded and if so its effect and should have directed the plaintiff or given time to the plaintiff to implead the parties which in view of the Trial Court have been necessary parties and thereafter should have decided the case on merits or thereafter should have dismissed the case on the ground that necessary parties not being impleaded and no relief can be granted.3. The facts of the case in br...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »