Karnataka Court January 1999 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.
T.H. Yashawanta and Others Vs. T.J. Jagadeesh and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2924; 1999(5)KarLJ525
ORDER1. Order passed by the Civil Judge, Tarikere dated 2nd October, 1996 is assailed. On the request of both the learned Counsels, the petitions are disposed off at orders stage.2. I.A. III filed by the plaintiff in all the three suits pending before the Civil Judge were allowed. I.A. IV filed by the first defendant in O.S. No. 68 of 1995 and O.S. No. 69 of 1995 under Order 7, Rule 10 read with Sections 6 and 15 of the CPC were dismissed. Two points were considered by the Civil Judge:(1) Whether there are sound and justifiable good grounds to allow I.A. III under Section 151 of the CPC to correct the Court proceedings? (2) Whether there are sound and justifiable good grounds to allow LA. IV filed by the first defendant to record de novo evidence? The first point was answered in the affirmative while the second point was answered in the negative.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners who are the defendants in the suits filed, submitted that the Civil Judge was not justified in reje...
Mohamed Iqbal Khan Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: [2000]118STC420(Kar)
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent.2. The petitioner is a dealer and a sales tax assessee. It is contended that the respondent has directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 5,775 and Rs. 1,11,247 respectively for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 respectively. It is further contended that the respondent has initiated proceedings Under Section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act before the learned Munsiff and Additional JMFC, Sagar. The petitioner has filed his objections and contended that subsequently he has paid the entire due and in the process of transfer of the records from the office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Sagar, to Davangere, this fact was not treated as closed, However, the learned Magistrate directed issue of FLW against the respondent. That order is questioned in this petition.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when once the objection is filed contending th...
V.N. Munegowda Vs. Mushraff Ali Baig and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ1545
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Though this revision has been listed in the matter of dispensation of notice being served on respondent Nos. 1 and 2, but the question does not arise as the revision, prima facie, appears to be not maintainable in view of the decision of this court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Thibbegowda : ILR1998KAR3733 , whereunder this court, after having examined in detail, has arrived at a conclusion that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cannot be held to be civil court for the purpose of Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. This view of this court has been taken after taking into consideration the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as well as Sections 175 and 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as provisions relating to the constitution of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal which provide that a Tribunal may be constituted of a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court or who is or who has been a Judge of the District Court or who is qualif...
Khadirsab Mohadinsab Mulla and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Off ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ98
ORDER1. This revision petition has been filed for Order dated 19-11-1998 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hukkeri on I.A. 4 moved under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court below has partly allowed the I.A. 4 filed by the present respondents and directed the present revision petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,548-97 ps. in the Court within 15 days.2. In my opinion, the present revision petition is misconceived and it is not maintainable. The order passed determining the question amount payable under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code comes and falls within the scope of decree. The expression 'decree' is defined as per Section 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code which reads as under.-' 'Decree' means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be dee...
S.K.L. and Company, Bangalore Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1623; 1999(3)KarLJ107
ORDER1. The Central Government is in terms of Section 30 of the Railways Act, 1989 empowered from time to time to fix by general or special order rates for the carriage of passengers and goods for the whole or any part of Railways in this Country. Different rates can according to the said provision be fixed for different class of goods subject to such conditions as may be specified. The rates so prescribed by the Central Government placed fruits like Anar, Apples, Cherries and Grapes in Scale C.P. 2 of the notification issued on the subject. With effect from 1-4-1992, the said fruits were shifted from Scale C.P. 2 to Scale C.P. 1, with the result that carriage charges for such fruits by Railway, also got correspondingly increased. Aggrieved the petitioner who is carrying on business in thepurchase and sale of fresh grapes has filed this petition challenging the inclusion of grapes in C.P. 1, scale primarily on the ground that the classification made by the Government between expensive ...
Smt. Sarojamma Vs. the Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transpo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ146
ORDER1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant under Section 115 of the CPC against the order dated 5-4-1997 passed in R (R) No. 35 of 1990 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Mangalore, by which the first revisional Court under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') has confirmed eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he has unlawfully sublet the petition premises and also on the ground that he has acquired alternative accommodation as envisaged under Section 21(1)(f) and (p) of the Act. 2. It is not at all in dispute that the petition premises was taken on lease by the petitioner tenant as evidenced by Ex. P. 1, being lease deed. The lower revisional Court on the basis of the ration card, Commissioner's report (Ex. C. 1) has found that the premises was subsequently put under exclusive possession of one Govardhan Baliga, brother of the petitioner-tenant. It has also been found as of fact that the petitioner-t...
Shivasharnappa Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ87
ORDER1. Land measuring 1 acre and 31 guntas out of a total of 4 acres and odd in Survey No. 64 of Nelkud Village in Gulbarga District was sold by the deceased-2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner in terms of a sale deed dated 28th of April, 1978. The seller then moved an application before the Tahsildar, Gulbarga challenging the validity of the transaction under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966. The Tahsildar found favour with the challenge and declared the sale to be in contravention of Section 6 of the Act. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, who set aside the said order and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal. The Deputy Commissioner once again by his order dated 11th of May, 1992 came to the conclusion that the sale of 1 acre and 31 guntas out of a total of 4 acres and odd was in violation of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act as the said tr...
Lakshmappa Balaganur Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ225
ORDER1. The petitioner, in this petition, is the President of Zilla Panchayat, Bagalkot.2. In this petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the notice dated 15th of December, 1998, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-G, issued by the second respondent convening a meeting on 28th of December, 1998 to consider the No Confidence Motion moved against the petitioner and Upadhyaksha of Bagalkot Zilla Panchayat.3. A few facts, which are not in serious dispute and which may be relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be stated as hereunder.-(a) Bagalkot Zilla Panchayat was earlier a part of Bijapur Zilla Panchayat. Consequent upon the bifurcation of Bijapur District as two districts, namely Bijapur District and Bagalkot District, Bagalkot Zilla Panchayat came to be constituted. Bagalkot Zilla Panchayat consists of 27 elected members and 19 ex officio members. Consequent upon the formation of Bagalkot Zilla Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat'), the pet...
Narayana and Others Vs. the Land Tribunal (iv), Managalore and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3886; 1999(3)KarLJ242
ORDER1. I have heard the respective learned Counsel in this group of petitions. Effectively, the challenge has come from Padmavathi the youngest daughter of deceased Guruva Poojari. There are several properties which are the subject-matter of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the undisputed position that emerges is that the five other children of Guruva Poojari had filed five applications which came to be decided. The contention was that each of those parties was in cultivation of certain areas of land and the landlord's consent having been obtained, the Tribunal conceded the claims. Pursuant to the grant of occupancy rights, all further steps were taken and the proceeding effectively came to be concluded in the year 1979. As late as in the year 1991, the writ petitions have been filed. The brothers challenged the orders on a variety of grounds and that was followed up by the challenge from the sister Padmavathi in the year 1992. The contention raised is a common one namely that th...
Sri Ramaseva Mandali Trust (R) and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1999
Reported in: [2003]133STC574(Kar)
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. Validity of Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 along with the Explanation to the definition of 'charges for marriage halls' in Section 2(1-A) have been assailed in these writ petitions.Section 3C reads as under :'Levy and collection of tax on charges for marriage hall.--Subject to the provisions of this Act, where charges for luxury provided in a marriage hall are not less than five thousand rupees per day there shall be levied and collected a tax on such charges at the following rates namely :--(a) Where charges for marriage hall per dayare not less than five thousand rupees but 5 per cent of suchless than ten thousand rupees charges.(b) Where charges for marriage hall per dayare not less than ten thousand rupees but 10 per cent of suchless than twenty thousand rupees charges.(c) Where charges for marriage hall per day 15 per cent of suchare twenty thousand rupees and above. charges.Provided that where charges for marriage hall are payable otherwise than on da...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »