Karnataka Court January 2001 Judgments
A. Ramdas and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR5354; 2001(5)KarLJ471
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed as Public Interest Litigations. The petitioner in W.P. No. 39572 of 2000 is a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly elected from Krishnaraja Constituency, Mysore. The petitioner in W.P. No. 31 of 2001 is the resident of Raichur Town and is an elected member from Ward 17, Raichur City Municipal Council. They have filed the present writ petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the two notifications dated 11-12-2000 issued by the State Government respectively under Section 21 read with Section 7 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (in short, the 'Corporation Act') and under Section 13 of the Municipalities Act, 1964 (in short, the 'Municipalities Act').2. The impugned notifications pertain to the Corporation of City of Mysore and City Municipal Council of Raichur. These notifications have been placed at Annexures-A to the respective writ petitions. By these notifications, the State Government has...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Trading Company, Puttur (Dakshina Kannada) Vs. State of Karnat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR1111; 2001(6)KarLJ5
ORDER1. The question that falls for our consideration, in this case, is whether multi-point levy is permissible on the same item of agricultural producethough the fee was collected by the same Marketing Committee on the first transaction of sale. The answer to this question depends on the interpretation of Section 65 of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). When the matter came up before V.K. Singhal, J., the learned Judge felt it necessary to have an authoritative pronouncement from the Full Bench. The learned Judge apparently felt that there is a conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court viz., Rajasekhariah v Tiptur Agricultural Produce Market Committee and Another and Sri Gangadhara Rice Mills v State of Karnataka and Another. In the first case it was held that there cannot be levy on every successive sale of the same agricultural produce in the same market area. In the second case, it was held that ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. D.M. Srinivas
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Kar)59; ILR2001KAR504; [2001]248ITR406(KAR); [2001]248ITR406(Karn)
H.L. Dattu, J.1. This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'the Act, 1957'), at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Karnataka-II, Bangalore. The question of law referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, to this court for decision is extracted below :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who held that the assessee is not liable to additional wealth-tax, on the premises leased out for rent to Royal Lodge of which the assessee is a partner on the ground that the business of Royal Lodge is the business of the assessee himself ?'2. The facts which are necessary for deciding the reference are summarised thus :The assessee under the wealth-tax provisions was the owner of certain properties situate in the urban area. Royal Lodge was a business ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Rao and anr. Vs. Bidar District Legal Services Authority and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant407
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28-11-1998 passed by the first and second respondents in O. S. No. 274/1998 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bhalki, vide Annexure-E to the writ petition and grant such other reliefs.2. The facts of the case in nutshell are; That according to the case of the petitioner, petitioners 1 and 2 are the father and son and they belong to joint Hindu family. They claimed to have joint interest in the suit property. Respondent No. 3 in the present case has filed a suit in O. S. No. 274/1998 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.). Bhalki, for declaration of joint ownership and joint possession regarding the suit land bearing Sy. No. 210/1 and 2 measuring 35 guntas of Bhalki and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land and also for correction of the Record of Rights by entering the name of the plaintiff as ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhananjaya Visweswara Hegde Vs. Jatti Kuppa Naika (Deceased) by L.Rs a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR1515; 2002(3)KarLJ233
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. This revision petition filed under Section 121-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against the order dated 28th of April, 1989 passed by the AdditionalLand Reforms Appellate Authority at Sirsi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Authority') in Appeal No. DAAAAP.47 of 1988 confirming the order dated 31st of August, 1985 made by the Land Tribunal, Sirsi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Case No. LRM.SR.66-63, registering Jatti Kuppa Naika, the deceased first respondent herein, as owner in respect of land measuring about three and half cents in Survey No. 382 of Mashigadde Village, as provided under Section 38 of the Act.2. The facts, which are not in serious dispute and which may be relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be stated as hereunder:(a) The petitioner herein is the owner of the land in question. Late Jatti Kuppa Naika was admittedly a Mulgeni Tenant (permanent tena...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Smt. Radha Bai and Other ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR416; 2001(4)KarLJ196
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner, in this petition, is the Chairman of the Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA'). This case is a classic example which depicts the tale of the struggle and the hardship undergone by an allottee of a small site allotted by the then Trust Board, for a period of about 24 years to get the site free from litigation.2. The few facts that may be relevant for the disposal of this petition, which are not in serious dispute, may be stated as hereunder:(a) In the year 1975, the then City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust Board'), had acquired site bearing No. 2 in Survey No. 23 of Gangenahalli, Bangalore, belonging to the first respondent; and since the first respondent did not receive any compensation towards the value of the said site, the Trust Board had, by means of allotment letter dated 21st of January, 1976, allotted site bearing No. 347 measuring 30' x 50' sit...
Tag this Judgment!Jeevan Diesels Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant233; [2001]122STC436(Kar)
Saldanha, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides in this appeal and we refrain from elucidating either the facts or recording any findings because of the fact that the essential controversy revolves around the question as to whether the order of remand which was passed by the appellate authority was justified or not. The appellant before us had effectively succeeded before the appellate authority to the extent that the order of the Assessing Authority had been set aside for the reason that the appellate authority, after due consideration of the merits, came to the conclusion that the case warranted a fuller and complete consideration. One of the aspects was that the additional material that was sought to be relied upon by the authority was required to be taken into consideration and this was the reason why the appellate authority directed the assessing authority to reconsider the case on merits and pass fresh orders. The Revisional Authority, in the meanwhile, issued not...
Tag this Judgment!Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Ta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: [2001]124STC321(Kar)
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. These appeals involve a common point and are hence being disposed of through a common order. The brief facts giving raise to these appeals which have been preferred by Larsen & Toubro Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants') are that the appellants had purchased certain consignments of MS plates from the Steel Authority of India at Bhilai and these consignments were being transported by truck to Bangalore. We are concerned with five truck loads which were stopped at the Ballary Road check-post, two of them on April 15, 1995 ; two of them on April 17, 1995 and one on April 18, 1995. The common feature, as pleaded by the department is that, in the case of all the five trucks at the initial point of scrutiny that no bill of sale or delivery note was forthcoming. It emerges from the material on record that on April 20, 1995 the appellant's company wrote a letter in which it was contended that the requisite documents had 'inadvertently not been produced by t...
Tag this Judgment!The Karnataka Bank Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Secretary, Govt. of India, Mi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Kar)418
ORDERTirath Singh Takur, J.The petitioners are banking companies carrying on their business in the State of Karnataka. They have in these petitions called in question the validity of notices issued by the concerned Income Tax Officers demanding information in regard to 'Term deposits' of Rs. 50,000 and above. The information called for is to the following extent :(a) Name and full address of the 'Term deposit' (in case of minors, guardians name be given) ;(2) Amount deposited with the date and mode (i.e., by cash or by cheque) of deposit ;(3) nature of deposit/rate of interest(4) Period of deposit.The notices specifically record that the information being called for is in terms of section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with the prior approval of the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Bangalore. The validity of a similar notice was challenged in Controllerate of Quality Assurance Electronics (Coal) Campus Employees Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. v. ITO (W.P. No. 38360/1999)....
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Limited Vs. Parvathi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR6]; ILR2001KAR3711; (2001)IILLJ1312Kant
Manjula Chellur, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Davanagere, in No. LOD/SCA/CR. 171/96 dated March 31, 1998.2. The Legal Representatives of thedeceased-Gurubasappa filed claim petitionbefore the Commissioner for Workmen'sCompensation, Davanagere, contending thaton May 11, 1996 at about 4 p.m. when thedeceased was loading the tractor he got stuckunder the mud and died due to failure ofrespiration system. Therefore, they haveclaimed a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- onthe ground that he was earning Rs. 1,500/- permonth and Rs. 30/- daily batta. So far as theowner is concerned, objection statement wasnot filed. The second respondent- InsuranceCompany filed objection statement.3. On the basis of the objection, totally five issues were raised.4. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined marking Ex.P1 to P6. So far as the incident resulting in the death of the deceased, the commissioner on appreciating the evidence on record has proper...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »