Karnataka Court March 2001 Judgments
Ganapathy Enterprises Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: [2001]124STC42(Kar)
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J. 1. We have heard the petitioner's learned advocate as also the learned Government Advocate on merits.2. It is unnecessary for us to recount in detail the facts and circumstances relating to the imposition of the penalty in this case which amounts to Rs. 26,240. The petitioner's learned counsel did submit that having regard to the nature of the transactions and, the fact that according to the petitioner the goods were virtually being moved from the warehouse to the persons to whom they were to be entrusted for sale, namely, the dealers, that the imposition of the penalty itself is unjustified. Though we have heard the learned advocate on both sides, we refrain from recording any findings with regard to this contention principally because there is some ambiguity with regard to the correct nature of the transaction and secondly because the petitioner's specific case was not stated in so many terms at the earliest point of time. Under the circumstances, we have not e...
Tag this Judgment!Timber Centre Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: [2001]124STC49(Kar)
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. We have heard the appellant's learned advocate and the learned Government Advocate on merits. The controversy involved in this appeal again centers around the question as to whether the appellant was obliged to have carried form No. 39 along with the cut rose wood pieces that were found in the transport at the time when the goods were intercepted. The original authority imposed a heavy penalty of Rs. 59,701 on the appellant principally on this ground but also taking note of the fact that there was no proper mention of the relevant Karnataka sales tax numbers in the job-work documents that were produced. The appellant had filed an appeal and the appellate authority reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,000 principally because the authority after examination of the record accepted the appellant's contention which was again based on documents that the wood had been purchased from the Forest Department on which the appellants had paid the relevant and requisite sales tax and th...
Tag this Judgment!Manager, Text Book Press Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: [2001]124STC303(Kar)
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the petitioner's learned advocate. As far as I.As. 1 to 3 are concerned, we have granted the requisite dispensation. As far as I.A. 4 is concerned, we are reluctantly allowing the I.A. and condoning the delay even though the grounds and the circumstances are both extremely weak.2. Coming to the I.A. 2, which is for condoning the delay of 3,230 days we have very carefully gone through what has been pointed out and we have heard the petitioner's learned counsel. We are required to respect and observe the well-defined principles which have now been crystallised in the various decisions of the High Courts and particularly the Supreme Court governing the circumstances under which delay can be condoned. While the courts have invariably made generous allowance for almost any delay and almost every situation, they have also very firmly laid down that where delay is abnormally gross and where the facts and circumstances indicate that the grounds for condon...
Tag this Judgment!H.S. Gotla Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2695
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The Criminal Petition filed against the registration of a case in LAC (CR) No. 2 of 1999 on the file of the Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Gulabarga against the petitioner herein. The petitioner is working as a Inspector of Excise. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta has registered the case against the petitioner for offences under Section 13(1)(e) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging that the assets held by the petitioner is disproportionate to the known source of income. After registration of the FIR against petitioner embarked upon the investigation. At this stage, the legality of the registration of case and conduct of investigation is in challenge.2. Heard the State Public prosecutor and the Counsel for the petitioner in this regard. The provisions of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act mandates a previous sanction by the officer not below the rank of the Superintendent of Police for investigation of ...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ullasini N. Kamble and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: 2001ACJ1797
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. These appeals arise out of common judgment and award delivered by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. 10, Bangalore City, in M.V.C. Case No. 1222 of 1986. The Tribunal by award dated 9.8.88, has assessed the compensation in total to be Rs. 4,47,000 and awarded it to the extent of Rs. 3,50,250 with interest at 9 per cent per annum. The Tribunal opined that accident in question did take place on account of no doubt, negligence of the driver of the vehicle TVS 50 bearing registration No. AAQ 920, but there was contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 25 per cent in the causing of or in the taking place of accident and as such, it held that petitioners-claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 3,50,250, as compensation from the respondents before, with reference to 75 per cent negligence of rider/driver of vehicle and as such awarded the same with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the said amount.M.F.A. No. 203 of 1989, has been file...
Tag this Judgment!Basavaiah Vs. Sri Krishnarajendra Mills Limited, Mysore (In Liquidatio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-2001
Reported in: [2001]44CLA57(Kar); [2001]106CompCas366(Kar); [2001(91)FLR334]; ILR2001KAR3148; 2001(4)KarLJ306; (2001)IILLJ1053Kant
1. The applicants in these applications were employees of Sri Krishnarajendra Mills Limited, Mysore, now under liquidation. The services of applicants were terminated by the company on 22-2-1980, 7-3-1980 and 23-1-1979 respectively. The petitioners and other similarly discharged workmen raised a dispute and the State Government referred the matter to Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'I.D. Act' ), in Reference No. 132 of 1981. The Labour Court by its award dated 12-10-1989 set aside the termination of petitioners' services and directed the company to reinstate themwith full back wages, continuity of services and consequential benefits for which they were entitled to under law.2. In the meanwhile, on 17-3-1988 Company Petition No. 43 of 1988 was filed by a creditor of the company for winding up. This Court by order dated 27-10-1988 ordered winding up of the company. However, that order was reviewed and this Court by a subsequent order d...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. M. Printer and ors. Vs. Marcel Martins
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant191; ILR2002KAR3757
N. Kumar, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the co-owners of the schedule premises to the extent of their contribution and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule premises.2. The case of the plaintiffs is the schedule premises i.e. premises bearing municipal No. 33. A and B Block. Austin Town, Bangalore-47 was originally owned by the Corporation City of Bangalore and the same was given out on lease by the Corporation. The lease was made out in the name of Smt. Stella Martins, wife of plaintiff No. 1 and mother of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and the defendant, she being the original allottee. On 18-11-1982 Smt. Stella Martins, the original allottee of the schedule premises expired. On her death it was found that the lease of the schedule property had to be transferred to the name of one of the members of their f...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Marico Industries Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-2001
Reported in: [2001]124STC196(Kar)
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. The State Government through the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Special) has preferred this petition which is directed against an appellate order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in S.T.A. No. 566 of 2000 dated July 21, 2000. We need to prefix this order with the observation that after the learned Government Advocate and the learned Senior Standing Counsel who represents the respondents submitted that the appeal requires to be formally admitted which is accordingly done, the two learned counsel however have advanced their arguments in extenso with regard to the narrow issue that is in controversy and having heard them, we consider it appropriate from the point of view of both the parties who are before us, that the appeal requires to be disposed of on the merits.2. Briefly stated, the respondents Marico Industries Ltd., produce and market coconut oil in containers of various dimensions. It is their case that this oil is pure coconut oil...
Tag this Judgment!P.B. Kotturbasappa and ors. Vs. K.B. Veerappa, Since Dead by Lr
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-2001
Reported in: ILR2004KAR655
Kumar, J. 1. The appellants have preferred this regular first appeal against the order dated 18.4.1995 passed in FDP.No.3/63 on the file of the Civil Judge, Davangere, dismissing the said application for drawing up of a final decree as not maintainable 2. The first appellant P.B. Kotturbasappa and his brothers filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their respective shares in the suit schedule property. After contest, the suit came to be decreed on 16.2.1972, holding that the plaintiffs 1, 8(a) to (h) and 9 are entitled for partition and separate possession of their four annas share in the plaint schedule property and also four annas share in the profits of the joint business from the year 1929 to date of suit and the defendants are also directed to render accounts. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the 11th defendant, K.B. Rudrappa preferred a regular first appeal No. 73/72, challenging the correctness of the said preliminary decree. Similarly, P.B. Kotturbasapp...
Tag this Judgment!P.B. Kotturbasappa and Ors. Vs. K.B. Veerappa, since dead by LR's. and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-2001
Reported in: ILR2004KAR655
1. The appellants have preferred this regular first appeal against the order dated 18.4.1995 passed in FDP.No.3/63 on the file of the Civil Judge, Davangere, dismissing the said application for drawing up of a final decree as not maintainable 2. The first appellant P.B. Kotturbasappa and his brothers filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their respective shares in the suit schedule property. After contest, the suit came to be decreed on 16.2.1972, holding that the plaintiffs 1, 8(a) to (h) and 9 are entitled for partition and separate possession of their four annas share in the plaint schedule property and also four annas share in the profits of the joint business from the year 1929 to date of suit and the defendants are also directed to render accounts. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the 11th defendant, K.B. Rudrappa preferred a regular first appeal No. 73/72, challenging the correctness of the said preliminary decree. Similarly, P.B. Kotturbasappa and othe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »