Karnataka Court February 2000 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.
Syed Shaha Fathuallah Alvi Vs. the City Municipal Council, Bidar and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2400; 2000(4)KarLJ272
ORDER1. House No. 8-1-140 situate in the New Housing Colony at Bidar stood registered in the name of Smt. Yaseen Begum, W/o the petitioner herein. It was in the year 1974, transferred in favour of the third respondent-Shri S.S. Alvi in terms of a sale deed executed by the former. In the year 1993, an entry recognising the transfer in favour of Shri Alvi, was also made in the Property Register maintained by the City Municipal Council, Bidar. By another sale deed executed and registered on the 13th of August, 1999, the house in question was transferred to the 2nd respondent in consideration of a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs. An application made by the purchaser to the City Municipal Council for what is described as change of khata in his name was opposed by the petitioner, who filed his objections, in which it was inter alia asserted that he was the real owner of the property in question which was held by his wife Smt. Yaseen Begum as a benamidar. It was further stated that the so-called transfer ...
State by Police of Gandhi Gunj Police Station, Bidar Vs. Abdul Aziz Mi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3787; 2000(5)KarLJ314
1. The State of Karnataka has assailed the acquittal of respondents 1 and 2 who stood charged with having committed the murder of one Mohamed Khaleel at Badrodi Colony, Bidar, on 14-9-1991 at about 6 p.m. It was alleged that Khaleel though a close relative of the accused had a rather colourful background and that on the previous day he is alleged to have caught the hand of Khubrabi Bi with some ulterior motive. As a result of this, a minor skirmish took place on the afternoon of 14-9-1991 at about noon time but it appears that nothing of real consequence by way of injuries occuired. At about 6 p.m. however, the wife of the deceased P.W. 14-Zaheeda Bee and the father Mohamed Khasim Sab as also the brother Mohamed Basheer were in the house when A-l and A-2 who are father and son are alleged to have come there and asked for Khaleel. Khaleel was a fruit vendor who used to normally stay out the whole day and return only at night and the Bazaar where he was to normally go was known to the ac...
Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Limited Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: [2001]123STC473(Kar)
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. Both these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment since the question involved is common.2. In S.T.R.P. No. 4 of 1997 following questions are raised :(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding the transactions in question as one of inter-State sale when the completed bus are directly exported by the petitioner to Sri Lanka party without giving delivery of the same to Ashok Leyland ?(2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding the disputed transaction as one of inter-State sale when there is no movement of goods from one State to another pursuant to a contract of sale ?(3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in subjecting the petitioner (sic) when the petitioner has acted as an agent of Ashok Leyland and has effected direct export sales without invoking the provisions of the Act ?(4) Whether, on the...
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Jindal Aluminium Lim ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(71)ECC409; 2000LC569(Karnataka); 2000(122)ELT645(Kar); ILR2000KAR3271; 2001(3)KarLJ450
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The Revenue by this petition, have raised the following three questions arising out of the order of the Central Excise, Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated 3-7-1998:'1. Whether the order of Adjudicating Authority which is confirmed by the Tribunal is passed in violation of principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of M/s. Arya Central Transport Company Limited as respondent? 3. Whether the Tribunal has erred in holding that the 1st respondent had not removed the goods clandestinely from the factory premises?' 2. According to the Revenue, the respondent being a manufacturer of aluminium extrusions removed the goods from their factory without paying the Central Excise Duty. The officers of the Central Excise Department searched the premises of the first respondent and M/s. Arya Central Transport Company Limited. On the basis of those documents found from transporter it was found that the first responden...
State by Sub-inspector of Police, Kollegal Police Station, Kollegal Vs ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)KarLJ403
1. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on both sides threadbare and we have also had occasion to reappraise the records of this case. The reason why we have followed this procedure is because the accused are represented by their learned Counsel and the incident pertains to the year 1991 and is an off-shoot to the disturbances that took place in that year. That there were communal flare-ups between two communities over the Cauvery dispute, is also evident from the record and having regard to the complexion of the case what is predominant in the Court's mind is the question whether at this late stage after the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence and recorded an order of acquittal, it would be prudent to disturb that order and reopen the old wounds. The learned State Public Prosecutor is justified in his submission that if serious offences have been committed, then the mere passage of time is no ground on which a Court should refuse to reopen the entire issue. However, what w...
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Gundappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR94]; 2000(2)KarLJ506
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The writ petition is taken up for filial disposal with the consent ofparties.3. The respondent was a conductor in K.S.R.T.C. While he was working as a conductor, the allegation against the respondent was that he did not issue tickets to 15 passengers despite collection of fare. There was a domestic enquiry and ultimately the respondent came to be dismissed from service. The respondent being aggrieved by the order of dismissal filed an application under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and passed an award directing reinstatement of the workman and also directed the petitioner to pay full back wages from the date of dismissal - 30-4-1999 till the date of reinstatement. The Labour Court also granted continuity of service. Aggrieved by this, the management has preferred this writ petition.4. The learned ...
Mallappa Vs. Yamanayya and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: II(2000)ACC185; 2001ACJ795; ILR2000KAR919; 2000(3)KarLJ226
ORDER1. The claimant-appellant being aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation granted to him in M.V.C. No. 174 of 1997 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. VII, Bijapur has preferred this appeal.2. The appellant was travelling in a maxi cab on 12-9-1996. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle insured with the 2nd respondent the appellant-claimant suffered serious injuries. The appellant was shifted to the Government Hospital, Kustagi and thereafter shifted to K.M.C. Hospital, Hubli for better treatment. The appellant was an in-patient for 2 1/2 months and had undergone treatment. The appellant claimed to be a driver earning about Rs. 2,500/- per month and sought for compensation under different heads to the extent of Rs. 2,20,000/-.3. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 5,000/- was awarded towards medical expenses, loss of amenities was determined at Rs. l0,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- was awarded towards loss of earnings during th...
M/S. R.S. Exports Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant332; 2000(5)KarLJ131
ORDER1. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of excavation, removing, transporting and exporting granite. It has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the notification at Annexure-A, dated 30-7-1997 revoking the quarry licence granted to it on 20-8-1996 for quarrying black granite in 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 80 of Veeranpura in Chamarajanagar Taluk of Mysore District.2. The brief facts of the case are, the aforesaid land was granted to one Smt. Kanakarathnamma under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'Land Grant Rules'). The petitioner states that it has obtained the consent of the grantee to exploit the mineral existing in the land in question as required under Rule 34(2) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). It is stated that in view of the view taken by this Court in the case of State of Karnataka v Dundamada Shetty, that pattadars of granted lands are not entitled to excavate gr...
Momammed MirajuddIn Vs. M.A. Iqbal and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)KarLJ431
ORDER1. An interesting question is raised in this revision petition regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and the method of valuing the property within the meaning of Section 7 of the Karnataka Court Fees Act read with Section 24(a).2. The facts urged in this suit are, the suit is filed on the immoveable property involved in the suit was ought to be valued under Section 24, sub-clause (a). Section 24(a) reads as follows:'24. Suits for declaration.--In a suit for declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under Section 24,-- (a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which, declaration relates, fee would be computed on the market value of the property or on rupees (one thousand), whichever is higher'. The word 'market value' occurring in Section 24(a) has been explained in Section 7 and Section 7 reads as follows:'7. Determination of market value.--(1) Save as otherwise provided, where the fee p...
Crystal Chemical Industries Vs. Jips Dyechem Industries and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: [2002]109CompCas299(Kar)
B. Padmaraj, J.1. Heard the arguments on either side and carefully perused the case records as well as the written arguments submitted by the petitioner by its partner in person. I have also carefully gone through the references made to several decisions in the revision petition as well as in the written arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioner.2. The petitioner, on being aggrieved over the inadequacy of sentence imposed upon the respondents/claimants, sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000 each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has filed this revision petition.3. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are the directors of Jips Dyechem Private Limited and partners in Jips Dyechem Industries. The said Jips Dyechem Private Limited had made an agreement with the petitioner-firm as per exhibit P-3 to run the factory of the petitioner on a monthly compensation basis and this ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »