Karnataka Court July 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.
Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Company Limited, Sagar, Shimoga District ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ467
S.R. Venkatesha Murthy, J. 1. Grant of a temporary permit by the Secretary, R.T.A., Shimoga in his proceedings RTA I SMG/PE. 408 of 1996-97 in favour of the third respondent herein was challenged in Writ Petition No. 24724 of 1996 before this Court. 2. The third respondent sought and obtained a temporary permit on the route Choorikatte to Jog and back for the period 2-8-1996 to 30-11-1996 on the ground of a temporary need. 3. Various grounds urged by the appellant herein against the grant of temporary grant under Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') failed in the writ petition and this writ appeal is presented. 4. Admittedly, the writ petition became infructuous by reason of the expiry of the period of the temporary permit impugned. The question of law as to whether the temporary permit could be granted, in the circumstances of the case to be narrated hereafter, requires to be answered so that the authorities may not issue temporary permit i...
K.L. Vedamurthy Vs. M. Gopalachari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2453; 1998(6)KarLJ341
ORDER1. Revision petitioner-Vedamurthy is the alleged landlord. Respondent-Gopalachari is the alleged tenant on the petition schedule residentialpremises.2. In this revision petition the order dated 4-12-1990 passed on I.A. No. I by the H.R.C. Judge (Small Causes Judge (SCCH-1), Bangalore City) in H.R.C. No. 765 of 1986 has been challenged.3. The petitioner-landlord claiming that he was the owner of the petition schedule premises, during the pendency of H.R.C. No. 765 of 1986, filed LA. No. I under Section 29(1) and (4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act praying that further proceedings should be stopped since the tenant had not paid arrears of rent and that the tenant should be directed to deliver possession of the petition schedule premises.4. The learned H.R.C. Judge rejected LA. No. I by the impugned order. The petitioner has challenged the order passed on I.A. No. I.5. The learned H.R.C, Judge rejected LA. No. I filed by the petitioner on the ground that there was a complicated que...
Thimmakka Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR793; 1998(6)KarLJ562
ORDER1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land measuring 4 acres 16 guntas in Sy. No. 30 of Nagarbhavi Village, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 8-2-1943. The said land was proposed for acquisition under preliminary notification dated 16-1-1985 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'), This was followed by a final notification dated 5-3-1986 issued under Section 6 of the Act. These two notifications were challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12566 of 1986 before this Court. This Court dismissed the writ petition holding the notifications referred to above are valid in its order dated 20th February, 1991. Eight days after the disposal of the above said writ petition, the petitioner again filed the present writ petition on 28-2-1991 seeking for quashing of the award passed, determining the market value in respect of the land referred to above pursuant to the notifications which were impugned in...
Smt. Yuvarani Kempucheluvajammanniavaru Trust, Mysore Vs. Special Depu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3293; 1998(6)KarLJ609
ORDER1. These writ petitions raise among others, one and common important question of law of interpretation and impact of Section 20 of Urban Land Ceiling Act and particularly the question in the context of the facts of the case that if the owner of the land holding land in excess of ceiling area or ceiling limits when applies under Section 20 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act, whether it is incumbent upon the Government or State to dispose of those applications at the earliest and in every case before the stage of publication and service of draft statement under Section 8(3) of the Act and disposal of objection under Section 8(4) and if it has not done so, what is the effect. If the answer to these questions goes in favour of the petitioners, then there may not be any necessity to go on other questions on merits of the case involved in these writ petitions, because in that case, firstly the Government may have to be directed to dispose of applicat...
Varalakshmi Enterprises and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: [1998]111STC800(Kar)
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. All these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order since the controversy is with regard to taxability of the item of fabrics which is claimed to be exempt by the petitioners and taxable by the respondents. Penal provisions have also been invoked. In few cases, the assessments/reassessments have been framed levying the tax while in others only proposition notices have been issued.2. The controversy hinges on the interpretation with regard to the exemption which has been granted by entry 8A of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act by which exemption has been given on the sales of all varieties of textiles, etc. The said entry reads as under :'8A. All varieties of textiles namely, cotton, woollen or artificial silk including rayon or nylon whether manufactured in mills, powerlooms or handlooms and hosiery cloth in lengths as described from time to time in column 2 of the First Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Impo...
Bharat Textiles and Proofing Industries Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3393
ORDERVenkatesha Murthy, J.1. The unsuccessful petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2385 of 1996 has preferred this Writ Appeal challenging the dismissal of the Writ Petition wherein the constitutional validity of Section 18AA of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was challenged.2. The appellant Bharath Textiles and Proofing Industries which was dealing in Tarpaulin and canvas cloth filed its returns for the accounting year 1985-86 when exigibility of tarpaulin cloth for tax was disputed. Ultimately this Court accepted the contention that tarpaulin cloth was not liable for sale tax. The appellant claims that he had refunded certain amounts to buyers and also deposited certain amounts to the Department. Later, the department initiated action under Section 18A of the Act seeking to impose penalty in respect of tax collected on the sale of tarpaulin cloth. The assessing authority levied a penalty against the appellant which was successfully challenged before ...
United India Insurance Co., Ltd Vs. Mohammed and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3541; (1999)ILLJ1068Kant
B.K. Sangalad, J.1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is filed against the award in WCA CR 24/NF/94 dated 20.2.95 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.2. The first respondent has filed an application claiming the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as he met with an accident on 29.9.93. He was working as Driver under the employment of second respondent.3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the case was referred before the Lok Adalath and the parties had agreed for the compensation of Rs. 80,664 and compromise application was filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC before the Commissioner. But the Commissioner has not passed the award in terms of the compromise arrived at before Lok Adalath and he has awarded Rs. 1,00,830/-. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that when there is already an award made by Lok Adalath, it was not open for the Commissioner to go in with the proceedings and pass award. On the otherhand, Mr. Manohar, Learned Counsel for R...
Venlon Polyester Film Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: [2003]133STC539(Kar)
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order under Section 21(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated February 20, 1998 for the period 1994-95 under Karnataka Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The revisional powers were exercised considering that the order of the assessing authority is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the Notification dated June 19, 1991 restricted the benefit of exemption on the additional capacity created by the old unit. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Notification dated June 19, 1991 published in Gazette on November 21, 1991 has given the condition that the amount of tax exemption shall be limited to the amount spent as investment for expansion/ diversification/modernisation, etc. Clause (c) of Explanation II has not restricted or changed the mode of calculation of the exemption. The disputed words are 'for the purpose of calculat...
Smt. Rajamma Vs. Smt. Gangambike
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ489
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arises from the order dated3-1-1994, whereby execution of the decree passed against the deceased husband of the present revision-petitioner, for recovery of money, the execution was sought, and the Court by its order dated 3-1-1994, issued warrant attaching the salary of the present revision-petitioner. The decree in S.C. No. 5006 of 1992 was passed against late Lingappa, with interest at 6 per cent that is in total a sum of Rs. 5,140/-. The application for execution when it was made, this order was passed. The original judgment-debtor had died in the month of November 1992, leaving behind the petitioner, two daughters and a son. 2. Heirs have come up in revision before this Court. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner's salary could not be attached in execution of the decree against her deceased husband. The respondent's C...
Hottepaksha Rangaswamy Vs. the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Kant383; ILR1999KAR4035; 1998(5)KarLJ123
ORDERAshok Bhan, J.1. This petition has been filed as public interest litigation inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, in particular respondent 2 (The Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore) to prosecute the public servants who have not submitted their statement of assets and liabilities under Section 22 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). Writ petition has been filed with the allegation that inspite of coming into force of the Act 11 years back, the public servants other than the Government servants including past and present Chief Minister, Ministers and Members of the State Legislative Assembly and Council, have not submitted their statement of assets and liabilities.2. Notice regarding rule was issued and the respondents were directed to file their statement of objections. Registrar of the Karnataka Lokayukta-respondent 2 was directed to file affidavit stating therein as to how many public servants referred to un...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »