Karnataka Court July 1999 Judgments

Mysore Cements Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2000]118STC563(Kar)

ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. All these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment since the controversy involved is common.Notices issued Under Section 12A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, relying the decision given in Ramco Cement Distribution Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1993] 88 STC 151 (SC) have been challenged in these petitions. It is stated that the notices are time-barred and that the provisions of Section 12-A(2) are not applicable. The said proviso is as under :'12-A(2) In computing the period of limitation for assessment of the escaped turnover under this section, the time during which an assessment has been deferred on account of any stay order granted by any court or other authority in any case, or by reason of the fact that an appeal or other proceeding is pending before the appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court, shall be excluded : Provided that nothing contained in this section limiting the time within which any action may be taken or...

Mazgaon Dock Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The controversy in these matters is with regard to levy of interest under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act with the aid of Section 13 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and connected matters. In India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam : AIR1997SC3054 it was held by the apex Court that interest can be levied and charged on delayed payment of tax only if the statute that levies and charges the tax make a substantive provision in this behalf. This judgment was followed in V.V.S. Sugars v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [1999] 114 STC 47 (SC) and Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Ashoka Rice Mills [1999] 112 STC 566 (All.).2. There is no dispute that the liability of interest is a substantive law and unless the statute under which the interest is levied specifically so authorises no interest can be levied. Section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 uses the word levy of penalty for delayed payment of tax. This Court in Sha Ghelabhai Devji and Company v. A...

Shiddappa and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2000KAR453; 2000(3)KarLJ242

ORDER1. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-landowners have called in question the correctness of the order dated 23rd of July, 1993 passed by the Land Tribunal, Hubli, granting occupancy right in respect of 3 acres 8 guntas of land in Survey No. 155/1A (old No. 20/1A) situated at Gabbur Village, Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District, in favour of the third respondent.2. Sri Ashok Kalyan Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioners, challenging the correctness of the order Annexure-F, made five submissions. Firstly, he submitted that since there is no claim made by the third respondent in respect of the land measuring 3 acres 8 guntas in Survey No. 155/1A (20/1A), the second respondent-Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant occupancy right in respect of the said land in favour of the third respondent. Secondly, he submitted that the impugned order is vitiated on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to consider the documents dated 31st...

K. Basavaraj Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad, Koppal, Raichur District and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1999]98CompCas312(Kar); 1999(6)KarLJ509

ORDER1. This revision by defendant 1 is directed against the judgment and money decree dated 15-4-1995 of the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Small Causes, Koppal, passed in S.C. No. 3 of 1994 decreeing the suit of R-1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff-Bank') as prayed against petitioner ('D-1' for short) and R-2 ('D-2' for short).2. Certain undisputed and admitted facts are as stated under:D-l was an 'A Class Contractor', who was undertaking contract work of Public Works Department ('P.W.D.' for short) in Koppal Taluk of Raichur District. He had dealings with the plaintiff-Bank since 1983. At his request and on his application, the plaintiff-Bank had issued Ex. P. 1 Bank guarantee dated 14-7-1988 for a sum of Rs. 28,740.00 in favour of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Raichur ('Executive Engineer' for short) in connection with the execution of certain contract work of the latter that was entrusted to D-l. Initially, that Bank guarantee was issued for a period of one year com...

Byrappa Vs. Mysore Paper Mills Limited

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2000KAR730; 2000(4)KarLJ31

ORDER1. The controversy in the present matter is regarding the payment of the Court fees. The suit for declaration claiming a sum of Rs. 2,15,350/-was filed by the petitioner. Earlier, in the suit, there were two prayers, one was to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 2,15,350/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the said amount till realisation, and the other one was for a mandatory injunction directing to return the said deposit amount which was deleted. By an order dated 28-11-1997, the Court found that the Court fee of Rs. 200/- paid by the plaintiff under Section 47 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, is insufficient and therefore, he was directed to pay ad valorem Court fee in accordance with Section 21 of the Act.2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, that, in a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled for certain amount lying in deposit, he need not pay anything more than the Court fees f...

S. Ibrahim Khan Vs. Mohammed Noorulla

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(6)KarLJ89

ORDER1. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC is directed against the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Mysore dismissing thetenant's revision petition preferred against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Mysore on I.A. I passed in HRC No. 196 of 1998.2. The petitioner is the tenant of the premises in question which is a non-residential premises. He filed a petition under Section 44 of the KRC Act. He filed an interlocutory application under Section 115 of the CPC praying permission to carry out necessary repairs to the petition schedule premises. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the tenant has stated that the rice bags stocked in the schedule premises are likely to be damaged due to heavy rains and therefore the petition premises requires immediate repairs. He has produced the report of the Regional Engineer who has certified that the petition premises needs immediate repairs. The landlord opposed this application on the grounds tha...

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and Another Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1999KAR4032; 1999(6)KarLJ587; (2000)ILLJ1264Kant

Y. Bhaskar Rao, C.J. 1. This writ appeal is filed by the corporation assailing the order of the learned Single Judge partly allowing the writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are: The first respondent-conductor filed writ petition seeking a direction to the appellants to treat the respondent as having been regularly appointed from the date he completed 180 days or at least on the completion of 240 days of service, and fix his regular pay with effect from that date by giving him the pay scales, allowances, increments and all benefits as if he was regularly appointed, and grant him the revised pay scales, fitment and all other consequential benefits as if his pay had been fixed w.e.f. the date on which it would have been regularly fixed with all allowances and benefits on the completion of 180 days service or at least 240 days of service; and to direct the appellants to pay the petitioner the costs of the proceedings. The respondent was appointed as conductor on 31-8-1967. The ye...

State of Karnataka Vs. Sheik Khader and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2000CriLJ430

M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. The facts of this case which we shall refer to presently are extremely gruesome and the investigating authorities had put up for trial two accused persons on the charge that in pursuance of their common intention, on 30-7-1992 at about 6.30 p.m. at Chikkabettahalli in the limits of Yelahanka Police Station, that they had assaulted the deceased Sheikh Ghouse with matchu and that pursuant to the injuries inflicted on him, they had caused his death. The prosecution had contended that the deceased who is a' married man, had eloped with the sister of the two accused about six months earlier and that they had returned recently. The accused were supposed to have been infuriated by this act on the part of the deceased apart from which there is also a suggestion that he was a regular bad character of the area. In the evening in question, it is alleged that the two accused stopped him when he was returning from his work at the nearby quarry at a point near his brother's hous...

State of Karnataka Vs. Basavaraj and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999CriLJ4750

M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the learned State Public Prosecutor on merits. Since these are connected appeals, we have directed the office to list both the appeals together so that this Court could consider them. While doing so, we have taken note of the fact that whereas this Court can hear both the appeals, that, the Division Bench appeal cannot go before the learned single Judge.2. The learned State Public Prosecutor laid considerable emphasis on the fact that A-1 and A-2 have been convicted by the trial Court and his, submission is that, the decision is legally incorrect because the Court have recorded an adverse finding against A-1 and A-2 ought not to have made any distinction between them and the remaining accused who have been acquitted. We have perused the judgment carefully and find that valid reasons have been given for making this distinction in so far as the evidence brings home the charges against A-1 and A-2 only whereas it does not establish them vis-a-vis the rema...

Guinness Hotte Paksha Rangaswamy Vs. the Chief Election Commissioner o ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2000Kant117; ILR1999KAR3792; 1999(6)KarLJ673

ORDER1. The petitioner, who was one of the unsuccessful candidates for 165-Sagar Assembly Constituency has, in this petition, called in question thecorrectness of the order dated 7th of December, 1998 passed by the Election Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') declaring that the petitioner is disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of either House of the Parliament or the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a period of three years from the date of the order i.e., from 7th of December, 1998. A copy of the said order has been produced by the respondents along with the statement of objections, as Annexure-R5.2. The facts that will have bearing for the disposal of this petition, are few and may be stated as hereunder:3. The second respondent-Election Officer has, by means of report dated 19th of January, 1995, as required under Rule 89 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), informe...