Karnataka Court March 2000 Judgments
Smt. Sulochanamma Vs. H. Nanjundaswamy and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)KarLJ215
ORDERThe petitioner purchased certain lands from the first respondent for a sum of Rs. 48,000/- under a sale deed dated 21-5-1987. When the sale deed was presented for registration on the same day after fulfilling all the requirements, an endorsement also had been made by the Sub-Registrar to that effect. Receipt for having paid the requisite charge is produced as Annexure-A. Instead of registering the document, the 2nd respondent-Sub-Registrar made a refusal endorsement on the deed itself to the following effect.-- 'The RTC, RR and IL of the properties were referred to the Tahsildar, Kanakapura in this Office Letter No. 309/97-98, dated 25-6-1983 as per the powers conferred under Government Notification No. RD 132 ERG 76, dated 14-3-1979 and RD 44 EST 81, dated 30-3-1981 for the purpose of ascertaining whether the registration of the document is opposed to public policy or not. The Tahsildar in his Letter No. DM 13/87-88, has intimated that the copies of RTC, RR and IL are bogus and f...
Tag this Judgment!The Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore Vs. Yamanur Sab and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)KarLJ516
ORDER1. The 1st defendant-Karnataka Housing Board has filed the above civil revision petition, questioning the valuation and payment of Court fee by the plaintiff in the Trial Court in O.S. No. 1358 of 1993, a suit for declaration of title and for possession apart from mesne profits and another declaration regarding possession. The defendants raised issue of Court fee. The plaint was valued at Rs. 10,000/- and Court fee of Rs. 250/- was paid under Section 24(a) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Taking the Court fee issue, as a preliminary issue the Trial Court took into consideration that the plaint was amended as one for declaration that lease-cum-sale agreement and the sale deed is not binding on the interest of the plaintiff. Therefore, in view of such amendment, the Court held that the Court fee paid is proper.2. Learned Counsel Miss Gowhar Unnisa appearing for the petitioner, submitted that actual value mentioned in the sale deed itself is Rs. 60,000/- and the Court...
Tag this Judgment!Remidex Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Bangalore and Another Vs. Uni ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant288; ILR2000KAR2197; 2000(5)KarLJ189
ORDER1. The petitioners herein challenge the validity of Annexure-C fixation issued by the respondents in exercise of their power conferred under Paragraph 9 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DPC Order'), fixing the ceiling price of the medicinal preparations manufactured by them. They allege that the 1st petitioner is an SSI unit manufacturing a capsule named ZEVIT which is a medicinal product containing Vitamin B and zinc. They allege that the impugned notification has been issued without prior notice; that a press release issued by the respondents Annexure-D indicates that the petitioners and another manufacturer alone have been targeted for a discriminatory treatment, that the cost difference in the manufacture of the formulations as explained in Annexure-E has not been borne in mind by the respondents while fixing the price resulting in the manufacturer of whose formulation having higher potency of ingredient being treated equally with manu...
Tag this Judgment!Subbamma and Another Vs. Narayanappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: II(2000)ACC565; 2001ACJ269; ILR2000KAR1806; 2000(4)KarLJ76
Acts/Rules/Orders:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163-ACases Referred:U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra and Others, ILR 1996 Kar. 2127 (SC), 1996(2) Cur. CC 344 (SC);Smt. Puttamma and Another v. D.V. Krishnappa and Another, 1999(5) Kar. L.J. 22, ILR 1999 Kar. Sh.N. 69JUDGEMENT 1. Admit. The appeal is taken up with the consent of the parties.2. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and award in M.V.C. No. 70 of 1995 has preferred this Miscellaneous First Appeal. The deceased was aged about 30 years. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation with interest at 6%. The claimants were mother and brother. The mother is aged about 58 years old. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was doing agricultural work as well as milk vending business. The Tribunal held that the evidence given by the appellants cannot be accepted and came to the conclusion that the deceased must have been earning Rs. 30/- or 40/- per day. The ...
Tag this Judgment!indiramma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant355; 2001(2)KarLJ483
ORDER1. The petitioner entered into agreement for purchasing a site measuring 60 x 45 feet, bearing No. 32 in Sy. No. 3 of Garahalli, Bangalore North Taluk from the 5th respondent for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 24-8-1978. Since the 5th respondent failed to execute the sale deed, the petitioner filed suit in O.S. No. 1553 of 1982. After contest, the suit was decreed on 24-8-1984. R.F.A. No. 17 of 1986 filed against the said judgment was dismissed on 23-3-1993. Thereafter, in Execution No. 406 of 1985 the petitioner got the sale deed executed through the Court. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent has passed a provisional order fixing the value of the site at Rs. 5,40,000/- and directing the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs. 10,500/-. The appeal preferred against the same was rejected. This writ petition is filed praying to quash those orders on the ground that the provisional order was not served on the petitioner and no notice was served before passing the provisional order.2. I have...
Tag this Judgment!H.S. Gururaja Rao Vs. Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant274; ILR2000KAR2525; 2000(5)KarLJ151
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Karnataka Bank Limited-respondent 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') filed O.A. No. 511 of 1997 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short, the 'Tribunal') seeking issuance of a recovery certificate jointly and severally against all the respondents for payment of Rs. 62,89,040/- with interest at 24% p.a. compounded quarterly from 12-12-1996 to date of payment and on default for sale of mortgage property described in the schedule to the application. M/s. ACE Pack Containers Private Limited-first respondent in the proceedings was the debtor, respondents 2 to 6 before the Tribunal were its Directors and the 7th respondent (appellant herein) was the guarantor. According to the Bank, the appellant had executed two letters of guarantee dated 18-6-1993 and 8-12-1993 in favour of the Bank and it also executed a memorandum of deposit of title deeds in regard to the property described in the schedule to the Bank on 18-6-1993 and 8-12-1993.2. Respondents were served....
Tag this Judgment!P. Hari Sharma Vs. P. Vaikunta Shenoy and Company, Bunder, Mangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)KarLJ357
1. This is defendant's appeal from the judgment and decree dt. 30-1-1997 whereby the plaintiffs suit had been decreed in part namely for a sum of Rs. 77,019-43 ps. only with costs and future interest at 6% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation of entire decretal amount. It may be mentioned here that the plaintiff originally had made a claim in the suit for a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,05,000-00. But the suit had been decreed only for Rs. 77,019-43 ps. with interest as mentioned above.2. The plaintiff alleged that, as per plaint allegations, he was carrying on business as commission agent and the defendant was having areca garden. The defendant used to receive money from the plaintiff now and then and the defendant had been delivering are canuts to the plaintiff at his premises for sale on commission. According to the plaintiff's case, he used to advance money from time to time and the defendant used to take advance amount and whenever defendant was in need of money, he...
Tag this Judgment!Mabu Sab Vs. M/S. United India Insurance Company Limited, Bellary
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ409; ILR2000KAR2312; 2000(5)KarLJ142
ORDER1. The revision petitioner along with his wife, was awarded compensation for the death of their son, in MVC No. 18 of 1998 in a sum of Rs. 60,000/- which was settled in Lok Adalat. Out of the said compensation amount, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is deposited in Vysya Bank for a period of five years in the name of the petitioner, by the order of the Court. The balance of Rs. 40,000/- is said to have been paid to the petitioner.2. The petitioner made an application for payment of Rs. 20,000/-kept in Fixed Deposit in Vysya Bank to meet the marriage expenses of his daughter, scheduled to be held on 18-2-2000. Along with the application, the marriage invitation card is produced before the Trial Court. The Trial Court rejected the request noting that Rs. 40,000/- is already paid to the petitioner which is available with him and the same could be utilised for the purpose of marriage, besides dwelt upon insignificant and unimportant discrepancies like the age of the petitioner shown as 32 years...
Tag this Judgment!Chamundi Granites P. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2743; [2000]245ITR661(KAR); [2000]245ITR661(Karn)
Ashok Bhan, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the consolidated order of the single judge in W. Ps. Nos. 30318 of 1994 and 33115 of 1995 (see : [1999]239ITR694(KAR) ), dismissing the writ petitions thereby upholding the vires of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). On the merits the appellant has been permitted to file the appeal provided under the statute within four weeks from the date of the judgment without objection to the limitation.Facts :2. The appellant-company is regularly assessed to tax under the relevant provisions of the Act. For the assessment year 1991-92, the appellant was assessed at nil income vide order of assessment dated February 21, 1994. While concluding the assessment, the Assessing Officer, initiated proceedings under Section 271D which provides for levy of penalty for infraction of Section 269SS. Section 269SS penalises the borrower for obtaining cash loan of Rs. 20,000 or more.3. The appellant had borrowed the following sum...
Tag this Judgment!Chamundi Granites (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-2000
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Kar)129
Ashok Bhan, J.:These appeals are directed against the consolidated order of the Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 30318/1994 and 33115/1995 (reported as Chamundi Granites (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT & Anr. (1999) 157 CTR (Kat) 1281 dismissing the writ petitions thereby upholding the Ores of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). On merits the appellant has been permitted to file the appeal provided under the statute within four weeks from the date of the judgment without objection to the limitation.2. Facts :Appellant company is regularly assessed to tax under the relevant provisions of the Act. For the assessment year 1991-92, the appellant was assessed at nil income vide order of assessment dated 21st Feb., 1994. While concluding the assessment the assessing officer, initiated proceedings under section 271D which provides for levy of penalty for infraction of section 269SS. Section 269SS penalises the borrower for obtaining cash loan of Rs. 20,000 or more.3. Appellant had ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »