Karnataka Court March 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.
Bharath Earth Movers Limited (Beml), Bangalore Vs. Deputy Commissioner ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Kant394; 2000(1)KarLJ433
ORDER1. All these writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment as the controversy raised in these writ petitions are common.2. Writ Petition No. 27467 has been filed by Bharath Earth Movers Limited (BEML) (hereinafter called as 'company') while Writ Petition No. 29294 of 1998 has been filed by M/s. N.T. Rahamathulla Khan (hereinafter called as 'transporter') and W.P. Nos. 7364 and 7365 of 1999 have been filed by K.T. Rajashekar and Widia India Limited, Bangalore. The controversy is with regard to tax under Section 8A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 as to whether it is payable either under Entry 5 or under Entry 8 of First Schedule Part-A of the Act.3. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Bharath Earth Movers Limited (BEML) are taken into consideration.4. The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 8A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957. An objection was raised by the Accountant General that the petitioner entered into an agreement...
M/S. Bpl Sanyo Utilities and Appliances Limited, Bangalore Vs. Union o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1999
Reported in: 1999LC68(Karnataka); 1999(108)ELT621(Kar); ILR1999KAR3380; 2000(1)KarLJ612
ORDER1. By this petition, the order dated 31-1-1999 passed under Section 35-F regarding waiver of pre-deposit and the stay of recovery of excise duty have been assailed. The Writ Petition No. 3696 of 1998 which was filed, came to be disposed of, on 7-12-1998, A contention was raised that theorder passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise dated 13-11-1998 is against the principles of natural justice and the documents were not confronted nor attention of the petitioner was drawn and the writ petition be entertained. This Court found that the Appellate Authority has the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal even in those cases where the principles of natural justice have been violated and since the matter has to be examined on the basis of record and correspondence, the petitioner was directed to file an appeal. The application for stay was also directed to be disposed of within two weeks from the date of the submission of copy of judgment. The Commissioner of Customs and Cent...
S.V. Munikrishnappa and Others Vs. S.V. Narayanappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2461; 1999(6)KarLJ155
ORDER1. In a suit for partition, preliminary decree has been passed. The subject-matter covers both the agricultural lands and house property. The petitioners herein have preferred an appeal as against the said preliminary decree. There is a delay in filing the said appeal. They have also, therefore, sought for condonation of delay which is yet to be heard and decided. In the meantime, they have sought for stay of further proceedings in the final decree proceedings already initiated in respect of the said preliminary decree. The learned Appellate Judge, in the impugned order, in view of Order XLI, Rule 3-A(3) of the CPC, has held that until the aspect relating to condonation of delay is heard and decided and until the delay is condoned, the question of granting of stay does not arise.2. In support of the conclusion reached by the learned Appellate Judge, Sri Harish Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent, refers to a decision of this Court in Mahadevappa and Others v Mallappa and Oth...
Prof. B.K. Chandrashekar and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Anothe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Kant461; ILR1999KAR2513; 1999(6)KarLJ394
ORDERAshok Bhan, J. 1. This order shall dispose of these two petitions filed as public interest litigation seeking the same relief though on different grounds to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Karnataka State Election Commission (for short, 'the Commission') to hold election to the Grama Panchayats in the State of Karnataka so that new elected body in each Panchayat is constituted well within time as mandated under Article 243-E of the Constitution of India irrespective of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Amendment Ordinance No. 1 of 1999 (Ordinance) amending the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act 1993. In W.P. No. 3826 of 1999 the vires of the ordinance have been challenged whereas in W.P. No. 3679 of 1999 the vires of the ordinance have not been challenged. 2. In W.P. No. 3679 of 1999 it has been averred that under Article 243-E the duration of the Panchayat is five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and its duration cannot be extended any further. So also an election to...
Sundara Gowda Vs. Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Kant426
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned order at Annexure-F, dated 12-12-1996 by which the 3rd respondent Asst. Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments, Mangalore, has appointed respondents 5 to 13 as the Trustees and among them the 5th respondent as the Managing Trustee of Rajan Daiva Chavadi, a temple in Sulya Taluk for a period of five years.2. Mr. A. Keshava Bhat, learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Dakshina Kannada, under Annexure-D in Case No. LAW.CR 57/89-90 has held that the aforesaid temple is not a 'Religious Institution' and that order has become final. It is his further submission that unless the Civil Courtdeclare that the decision of the Competent Authority under the Act is bad in law and set aside the same, the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is valid in law and shall not be interfered with by this Court.3. The impugned or...
Ramaiah Reddy Vs. Nanjundaradhya and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2405; 2000(2)KarLJ275
ORDER1. This writ petition came to be registered on receipt of the appeal papers in Appeal No. LRA 872 of 1986 on the file of the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore District. That appeal was registered as a deemed appeal on transfer of W.P. No. 33742 of 1982 by this Court. In the said writ petition, the petitioner herein had challenged the order dated 26-7-1982 in No. CRF INM 159 ATC 84 of 1979-80. In passing the same, the respondent 2-the Land Tribunal, Anekal had rejected the claim of the petitioner as well as that of the respondent 1 on the ground that the earlier order dated 10-3-1975 in case No. AIMI-7:74-75 the non-party Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, had granted occupancy right in respect of 3 acres 13 guntas in Sy. No. 4 of Nekkundi, Dommasandra Village, Anekal Taluk, to the respondent 1. 2. This matter had been listed for preliminary hearing 'B' Group and by consent of parties, the matter had been taken up for final hearing. Accordingly, rul...
V.Ramachandra Vs. Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal D.K. District a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3971; 1999(6)KarLJ311
ORDER1. This is not one of those usual cases, where an employee/officer of an organisation goes before his employer, just before his retirement from service seeking correction of his date of birth entered in his service records, but a case of an employer - a nationalised Bank, modifying the date of birth at the fag end oT the career of the employee/officer as different from the one earlier recorded. This action and the consequent order made, is questioned by the petitioner and his learned Counsel Sri M.C. Narasimhan, primarily on the ground that even if there is no period of limitation prescribed, any action for correction of date of birth entered in the service records by the employer must have been done without any unreasonable delay and this Court exercising its discretionary jurisdiction should not come to the aid of the employer, who had slept over the matter for nearly three decades and the general principle of refusing relief on the grounds of laches or stale claims should be ap...
A.K. Boards and Doors, Bantwal Taluk, South Kanara District Vs. Union ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1999
Reported in: 1999LC467(Karnataka); 2000(115)ELT615(Kar); ILR1999KAR2353; 2000(2)KarLJ62
ORDER1. Validity of proviso to Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 have been assailed in this petition. Section 35 provides the appeal to be filed within a period of three months and the proviso further provides a period of another three months for condonation of delay. If the appeal is filed after the expiry of 6 months then the Appellate Authority has nopower to condone the delay, therefore it is contended that it is arbitrary exercise of power by the Parliament. It is stated that there may be number of circumstances by which an assessee is prevented from filing the appeal and taking away his right to file an appeal is violative of the right of the petitioner to carry on his business as even the tax which is levied may be without the authority of law itself for which the petitioner would have no remedy.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the ground of condonation of delay relied on the following judgments;State of Kerala v E.K. Kuriyipe and Others: 'The sufficient case fo...
Smt. Laxmi Bai Vs. B.K. Hemanth Kumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)KarLJ350
ORDER1. This is a landlord's revision petition against rejection of the petitioner's eviction under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') in HRC No. 2143 of 1989, dated 11-7-1995 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.2. The parties are referred according to their array in the Trial Court.3. The petitioner claims that the respondent is a tenant of the schedule premises on a rental of Rs. 500/- p.m. under a lease deed dated 5-2-1988. A notice was tendered to the respondent-tenant calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent from 5-2-1988 till 5-1-1989 and the respondent refused to receive the same and it was affixed on the door of the premises, while another notice was sent to him by registered post. Since the respondent has not complied with the notice, the petitioner claimed eviction under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Act, but it has been rejected by the Trial Court.4. The respondent denied the status of the petitioner...
North-west Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Hubli Vs. M/S. Durgam ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2464; 1999(6)KarLJ545
ORDER1. In 'these writ petitions by the State Transport Undertaking (for short, 'S.T.U.') grant of stage carriage permit by the State Transport Authority (for short, 'S.T.A.') on routes overlapping Uppunda, in the erstwhile district of Dakshina Kannada and now in Udupi District, and Bhatkal in North Kanara District, are questioned as being contrary to what is popularly called 'Dharwad Scheme'.2. The writ petitioner, a S.T.U., has challenged the aforesaid grant, as being contrary to the scheme, besides raising a contention that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of contesting the claim for the grant of permit; that a route survey was not conducted for verification and overlap on the notified route Uppunda to Bhatkal and that the S.T.A., had no jurisdiction to entertain the application, muchless grant the permits sought.3. There is no contest that the route/s applied for in the impugned grants overlap on the Route No. 160 Uppunda to Bhatkal or part under the Dharwar Scheme.4....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »