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.
Tata Tea Limited Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1999
Reported in: [2001]121STC299(Kar)
ORDERA.M. Farooq, J. 1. These two sales tax revision petitions are directed against the assessment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-IV, Bangalore, confirmed in appeals before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) and further confirmed in S.T.A. Nos. 415 and 416 of 1992 by the order dated February 17, 1994 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners.2. The appellant is a public limited company engaged in the business of blending, packing and selling tea. Its head office is in Calcutta with branches in several other States. The Bangalore branch is in-charge of the packing division of the company. It is having a factory in Bangalore where tea which is purchased mostly from Assam is blended and packed and the packed tea of different brands is sold either in the State or in the course of inter-State trade. The petitioners filed returns of turnover under the Karnataka Sales Tax as well a...
Indian Institute of Science Employees' Association Bangalore Vs. India ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ240
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Sri T. Narayanaswamy and Sri Padubidri Raghavendra Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision arises from the order under Order 16, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code whereby the Trial Court had rejected the application for summoning of certain documents by the defendant from the plaintiff. The Court below has rejected the application on the ground that the application could have been moved under Order 11, Rule 14 and not under Order 16, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code which deals with issuance of summons to a person to produce documents. 3. I don't want to make any observation as to whether the Court below is correct in making these observations that application could have been moved under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code instead of moving application under Order 16, Rule 5. Anyway, here the Court below has rejected the application filed as according to its opinion and view, the defendant-revi...
K. Seshappa Vs. St. Francis Xavier Church, Chikkaballapur
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ379
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Sri S. Harish Kumar and Smt. Hymavathi for respondent.2. This revision petition arises from the order dated 4-7-1998 whereby the Trial Court has ordered that the consideration and decision of the application under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the CPC shall be decided along with the merits of the case i.e., I.As. 5 and 8 will be considered along with the merits of the case i.e., the suit.3. The facts of the case in the nutshell are that, in the suit for specific performance of contract to execute the agreement of lease and to enforce the agreement of contract of lease, the plaintiff has moved an application under Order 39 seeking injunction directing the defendant not to alienate the suit property in any manner. The Court granted the injunction order. Thereafter, according to the plaintiff, defendant committed breach of injunction order by alienating the property to some third person and the plaintiff moved the application under Ord...
Smt. Rosali V. Vs. M/S. Nellai Small Match Producers Service Industria ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ141
ORDER1. These two revisions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arise from an order dated 27-9-1996 passed by the learned Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore which order reads as under:'Dhr. KAB. Jdr. SGK. To hear Dhr. and to produce copy of the order in RFA. Sri MRG. for Dhr. submits that the sale is void in view of the confirmation before 30 days and other objections. Hence sale is set aside for these reasons. Sri MRG prays for time to take steps. To hear and steps by 11-10-1996'.2. These revisions have been filed on 12-10-1998. It is barred by limitation by more than 2 years. Office has reported both revisions to be barred by limitation. But, it may be mentioned that along with the revision petition, the petitioners have filed an application for condonation of delay. I have heard the learned Counsel for both parties both on the question of limitation as well as on merits. On behalf of the applicant, it has been contended that the revisionist, before the Court had no ...
H.B. Rajendra and Others Vs. Vijaya Bank, Madikeri and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2154; 1999(3)KarLJ180
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed by the judgment-debtors 2 to 4 in Execution Case No. 96 of 1996, on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Madikeri, against the order dated 14-10-1998 passed by the said Court overruling their objections and holding that the execution petition is not barred by limitation. 2. Respondent 1-Vijaya Bank filed the suit O.S. No. 1 of 1982, on the file of the Civil Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, against the revision petitioners, who are defendants 2 to 4 and respondent 2, who is defendant 1, and obtained a preliminary decree on 8-4-1982 in the said suit for recovery of the suit amount by the sale of mortgaged property. A final decree was passed in the said suit on 6-9-1982. Thereafter, the first respondent filed Execution Case No. 68 of 1991, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, for executing the decree. The said execution petition came to be dismissed on 17-11-1993. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed execution case once ...
H.L. Nagaraju and Another Vs. the Deputy General Manager, Personnel De ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR41]; ILR1999KAR1197; 1999(3)KarLJ186
ORDER1. A common question arises for consideration in these two petitions, an answer to which turns mainly on a true and correct interpretation of Regulation 29 of Vijaya Bank Employees Pension Regulations. The regulation inter alia provides that any employee who has completed 20 years of qualifying service may retire from service by giving a notice of not less than three months to the Appointing Authority. Sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 29, precludes any employee who has elected to retire and who has given a notice to that effect from withdrawing the notice except with the specific approval of the Appointing Authority. Regulation 29 to the extent the same is relevant for the present reads thus: 'Regulation 29.--(1) On or after the 1st day of November, 1993 at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the Appointing Authority retire from service: Provided that this sub-regulation sh...
C. Abdul Hameed Vs. State by Belthangady Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALT(Cri)89; 1999CriLJ3654; 1999(2)KarLJ679
ORDER1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of the arrest of the petitioner by Belthangady Police in Crime No. 94 of 1998 of that Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The petitioner having failed in his attempt to get an order of bail in the hands of the learned Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, has approached this Court for a similar relief.2. It is alleged by the Police that on 14-6-1998, at about 7.00 p.m., the Sub-Inspector of Police received a telephonic message to the effect that the petitioner has stored sandalwood illegally in the bathroom of his house at Thotathadi Village. The Sub-Inspector immediately went to the said place along with his staff and reached the said place at about 7.45 p.m. The petitioner who was present in the backyard of his house took to his heels. Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector searched his house in the presence of Panchas an...
M.N.G. Krishnaiah Vs. Ganeshappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3762; 1999(5)KarLJ267
ORDER1. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises from the judgment and order dated August 21, 1998 passed by Sri N. Subba Rao, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolar Gold Fields in Appeal No. 16 of 1998 condoning the delay of almost sixty-five days in filing of the appeal in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Feeling aggrieved from that order, the plaintiff-respondent has come up in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that in view of the provisions of Order 41, Rule 3-A, the Court below should not have considered the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act nor should have granted any interim order. He contends that Rule 3-A is mandatory in its nature and it was the duty of the Appellate Court to have dismissed the appeal when the appeal was filed without accompanying an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned Counsel ...
Shree Someshwara Farmers Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Joint Co ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1999
Reported in: [1999]236ITR829(KAR); [1999]236ITR829(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. By this petition, notice issued under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been assailed. Argument of learned counsel for the petition is two fold.2. First, it is stated that against the order passed under Section 143(1)(a) an appeal was preferred to the appellate authority. The order under Section 143(1)(a) was passed by the assessing authority at Hubli but because of change of place of business, the appeal effect order has been passed by the assessing authority at Belgaum. It is submitted that no notice of demand as contemplated under Section 156 has been issued and as such the recovery proceedings under Section 226(3) could not have been initiated. Reliance is placed on the judgment given in the case of Manmohanlal v. ITO : [1987]168ITR616(SC) , wherein it was observed by the apex court that the court has jurisdiction to examine and decide as to whether there has been a proper service of demand notice and the direction for payment could be made only if ...
Rajajinagar Finance and Investments Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Asst. Gener ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1999
Reported in: [2000]101CompCas436(Kar)
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The first petitioner is a financial company and the second petitioner is its shareholder. The petitioners filed an application as per annexure 'D' dated July 8, 1997, to the Reserve Bank of India for registration under Section 45-IA of the Reserve Bank of India (Amendment) Act, 1997. The said application was returned vide annexure 'H' on the ground that a non-banking company should have submitted the application before July 8, 1997, and the application was not submitted by the petitioner within six months from the date the Act came into force.2. Mr. Udaya Holla, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application submitted by the petitioners as per annexure 'D' was in time in view of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Smt. E.P. Janu Amma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, : AIR1980Ker175 , in support of the submission.3. With regard to commencement and termination of time, Secti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »