Karnataka Court June 1998 Judgments
India Equipment Leasing Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: [1998]111STC403(Kar)
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. The validity of Section 5C read with Explanation (3)(d) of Section 2(1)(t) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 have been assailed and since the controversy is common in all these petitions they are disposed of by this common order.2. In consequence of the 46th Constitutional amendment Section 5C of the Act, was inserted by Act No. 27 of 1985 providing for levying and collection of tax on leasing transactions involving transfer of right to use the goods. In the case of Shetty Leasing (India) Ltd. v. Union of India [1996] 100 STC 533 (Kar), the provisions were struck down and thereafter by Karnataka Act 5 of 1996 the present provisions were inserted retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1986. The provisions are as under :'5C. Levy of tax on the transfer of the right to use any goods.--Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (3) of Section 5, but subject to Sub-sections (5) and (6) of the said section, every dealer shall pay for ea...
Tag this Judgment!India Equipment Leasing Ltd., and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3435
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. The validity of Section 5-C read with explanation 3(d) of Section 2(1)(t) of the Karnataka Sales Act, 1957 have been assailed and since the controversy is common in all these petitions they are disposed of by this common order.2. In consequence of the 46th Constitutional amendment, Section 5-C of the Act, was inserted by Act 27/85 providing for levying and collection of tax on leasing transactions involving transfer of right to use the goods. In the case of SHETTY LEASING INDIA LTD., AND ORS., v. UNION OF INDIA 1996 100 STC 533 the provisions were struck down and thereafter by Karnataka Act 5/96 the present provisions were inserted retrospectively with effect from 1.4.1986. The provisions are as under:'5-C. Levy of tax on the transfer of the right to sue any goods:-Notwithstanding anything concerned in Sub-section (1) or subsection (3) of Section 5, but subject to sub-sections (5) and (6) of the said Section, every dealer shall pay for each year a tax under this...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. J. Vijayalakshmi Vs. Master S.U. SachIn (Minor) by Guardian and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1998
Reported in: 2000(1)KarLJ8
Acts/Rules/Orders:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - Order 32, Rule 7Case Referred:Shivaraya v. Siddamma and Another, 1962 Mys. L.J. 990, AIR 1963 Mys. 127JUDGEMENTS.R. Venkatesha Murthy, J.1. This is an application for permission to prosecute the appeal challenging the compromise decree in O.S. No. 121 of 1994 instituted by the first respondent herein challenging the alienation made by the father.2. The request for permission to prosecute the appeal is resisted by respondents 1 to 3. It is contended for the respondents that the applicant is a total stranger to the suit and is not even a proper party and has no interest in the subject-matter of the suit. It is also contended that equity between the parties to the suit has been worked out and found to be acceptable to the Trial Court and the decree has been passed in accordance with Order 32, Rule 7 of the CPC. The applicant cannot seek leave to introduce a new dimension to the suit.3. The question as to whether a person who is n...
Tag this Judgment!L. Eswar Rao Vs. V. Nagesh Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ620
ORDER1. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC arises from the order dated 17-3-1998 passed by Sri S.M. Shivana Goudar, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bellary, who had dismissed the revisionist-petitioner's application under Section 151 for reopening the case of the defendant and to permit him to lead further evidence.2. The facts of the case in the nutshell are that, as per the orders passed on I.A. Nos. 24 and 95 for the examination of the disputed handwriting, a Commissioner was appointed subject to cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The defendant deposited the initial amount of Rs. 1,000/-. Thereafter it appears, that he had to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,800/- towards Commissioner's fee, but, that was not deposited. Time passed on and thereafter the Court, it appears, recalled the earlier order as the conditions have not been complied with i.e., payment of amount. Defendant moved another application I.A. No. 25 for reopening of the defendant's case and to permit him to lead further evide...
Tag this Judgment!The Bellary Nagarikara Vedike, Bellary Vs. State of Karnataka and Othe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ200
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Aggrieved by the revision of water rates made by the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, Bellary Division, Bellary, vide public notice dated 3-12-1986 (Annexure-A), the petitioner-Association prayed for quashing of the aforesaid public notice with direction to the 2nd respondent to refrain from giving effect to the revised water rates. It is contended that the 1st respondent-State was duty bound to supply water to the citizens and maintain the minimum required water supply for drinking and other hygienically purposes for improving the standard of living and public life. The 3rd respondent had been entrusted with the supply of water in the Bellary Division. The KarnatakaUrban Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the 'Act') was enacted for the purposes noted herein above.2. The 3rd respondent was supplying water to the citizens as regards domestic supply at the rate of 0.30 ps. per thousand litres which was revised to Rs. 10.0...
Tag this Judgment!Nagamma and Others Vs. Deveeramma and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1998
Reported in: 2001(6)KarLJ373
1. This is defendants' second appeal from the judgment and decree dated 23-10-1990 passed by Sri R.H. Raddi, Principal Civil Judge and C.J.M., Shimoga in Regular Appeal No. 41/88 dismissing the defendants' appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 20-2-1988 given by Sri. C.G. Hungund, Principal Munsiff, Shimoga, in Original Suit No. 589/1977, decreeing the plaintiffs-respondents' suit for declaratory decree declaring the plaintiffs-respondents to be the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties as well as for permanent injunction directing defendants (appellants) not to interfere with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.2. The facts of the case in brief are that, the present plaintiffs-respondents filed the suit for declaration that plaintiffs alone have got right title and interest in the suit properties and are in possession of the same. Plaintiffs have also prayed for grant of decree for permanent injunction. The suit properties are more ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. N. Ugramurthy Vs. the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ67
ORDER1. In the present writ petition, the only question requiring consideration is regarding the authority of Dr. R.A. Parangusa Das (in short 'Dr. Das') to continue as the Director of the Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Accident and Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Bangalore, (in short 'the Institute') after 19-6-1997, the date on which, according to the petitioner, his tenure to the post expired.2. I have heard Mr. V. Balakrishna, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Advocate General for the State Government and Mr. Gopal Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for Dr. Das, 3rd respondent, on the above question.3. The Institute is established by the 'Bangalore Accidents Rehabilitation and Other Services' (in short 'the Society'), which is a registered society under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. As per Clause 6(a) of the memorandum of association of the Society, the management and control of all the affairs of the Society are vested in the...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hidkal Dam Project, Hidkal, Belg ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ679
ORDER1. Heard the learned Government Pleader Sri Huleppa Herur on behalf of the revisionist-applicant.2. This revision application arises from the order of Sri N.B. Kulkarni, learned Additional Civil Judge, Chikodi, allowing the present opposite party respondent's application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Karnataka Act 68 of 1984.3. The learned Government Pleader for the revisionist contended that the reference order directing the respondent to refer the application under Section 18(1) of the Act is without jurisdiction as the application for reference under Section 18(1) and (3) is barred by time. Learned Government Pleader further contended that there being two awards, the respondent-claimant should have filed two applications for reference and one was not maintainable. These contentions have also been raised before the learned Civil Judge who had rejected these contentions.4. These contentions of the learned Government Counsel for the revisionist-p...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sathyanarayana and Others Vs. Muralidhara and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ547; 1999(2)KarLJ605
Acts/Rules/Orders:Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 94, 95 and 110Cases Referred:The New India Assurance Company Limited v. H. Siddalinga Naika and Others, AIR 1984 Kant. 228;National Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore v. Smt. Leelavathi and Others, 1996(5) Kar. L.J. 442;United India Insurance Company Limited v. P.V. Lakshmanan and Another, 1996(3) Kar. L.J. 475;Kishori v. Chairman, Tribal Service Co-operative Society Limited and Others, 1988 ACJ 636;Assam Corporation v. Binu Rani Ao and Others, 1974 ACJ 381 (Ass. and Nag.);National Insurance Company Limited v. Faqir Chand and Others, AI(R 1995 J and K 91;Skandia Insurance Company Limited v. Kokilaben Chandravadan and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1184;Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and Others v. M/s. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Company (Private) Limited and Another, AIR 1977 SC 1735, (1977)2 SCC 745;Chacko v. Rosamma, 1991(2) Kerala High Court 588;Amrit Lal Sood and Another v. Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and Others, (1998)3 SCC 744, JT 1998(2) ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Puttaswamy and Another Vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, Watch F ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: [1998(80)FLR923]; ILR1998KAR3253; 1998(6)KarLJ1; (1999)IILLJ431Kant
1. The appellants, while in employment of the respondent-Company, were charge-sheeted for committing theft and passing of watch parts in order to make wrongful gains. On the basis of the enquiry, the appellants were dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the orders of their dismissal, the appellants filed writ petitions in this Court alleging therein that they were not afforded a fair opportunity of defending themselves and that the admissions made by them while in police custody were wrongly made the basis to hold them guilty. It was further contended that on account of the pendency of criminal cases, they were handicapped in putting their defence effectively before the Inquiry Officer. The learned Single Judge vide the orders impugned in these appeals, came to the conclusion that the Inquiry Officer had not sifted the evidence properly to ascertain the liability in the context of the charge framed against the appellants. The veracity of their evidence was also held to be not properly c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »