Karnataka Court April 2001 Judgments
Special Dir., Enforcement Directorate Vs. Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(76)ECC160; 2001(131)ELT555(Kar)
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This miscellaneous first appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 arises from the order dated 8th July, 1994 passed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, New Delhi, in Appeal No. 709/1993 under Section 52 of the aforesaid Act, whereby the Appellate Board set aside the order dated 6-10-1993 passed by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate (Foreign Regulation Act) New Delhi, in Case No. T 4/32-M/91, whereby the adjudicating authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/-on Mohtesham Md. Ismail (respondent No. 1 herein).2. The appellant before this Court is the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act), Loknayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi.3. The facts of the case in the nutshell are; that the first respondent according to the appellant's case is a citizen of India and has been working in Dubai and is a partner in M/s. Ahamed Illiyas Trading Company, Abu Dabi, U.A.E. The respon...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Balu Mangale (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Gafar Babalal Mulla
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4098; 2001(4)KarLJ396
ORDER1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below dismissing the eviction petition filed by the petitioner-landlord, since deceased, under Section 21-B(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short).2. The petitioner-landlord filed the eviction petition seeking eviction of the petition premises bearing No. 31/2869A situated at Shivajinagar, Nipani. The petitioner was a member of the Armed Forces. He retired from service on 16-7-1976. On retirement the petitioner also procured a certificate from the Commanding Officer from his regiment to the effect that he retired from service as on 1-12-1976 and that he requires asuitable accommodation for himself and his family for residence. The said certificate is marked as Ex. P. 2. On coming over to his home-town the petitioner filed the petition claiming' that his family consists of himself, his wife, one major son two minor sons an...
Tag this Judgment!A.G. Krishna Murthy Vs. A.R. Rajanna and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR3911; 2001(4)KarLJ605
ORDER1. This revision under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) is filed by the petitioner-tenant being aggrieved by the order dated 27-2-1997 passed in H.R.C. No. 1504 of 1990 on the file of the Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, allowing the petition filed under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act.2. The landlord, first respondent filed the eviction petition in the Court below on the ground that the petition shop premises is required by his son for purposes of establishing a tool and die shop. The landlord pleaded in the petition that he had taken voluntary retirement from the State Government. His son has secured a diploma in tool and die making from the Government Toolroom and Training Centre, Rajajinagar and has undergone intensive training for six months but still he could not get a suitable employment despite earnest efforts. The shop is needed to establish the tool and die making shop. The shop is situate in a commercial area and...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Krishna Reddy Vs. H.C. Narayana Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant442; ILR2001KAR3870
The Court1. This is a defendant's second appeal. The respondent to this appeal is the plaintiff.2. Parties will be referred to with reference to the rank in the Trial Court.3. The plaintiff filed the suit for 'specific performance' of an agreement of sale dated 31-10-1975 by directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour. He contended in the suit that the defendant is the owner of the land measuring 30 guntas in Survey No. 63/7 situated at Halanayakana Halli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. By an agreement dated 31-10-1975, he 'Agreed to sell', the said land for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,000/-. After receiving the sale consideration the defendant parted with the land, and agreed to execute the 'sale deed', as and when the ban for selling the land, under the 'Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act', 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'an Act') was repealed. On 28-10-1993, after the Act was repealed plaintiff by a written notice ca...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)KarLJ139
1. This appeal preferred by the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Binny Fields, Binnypeth, Bangalore, under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) against the order dated 10th September, 1999 passed in ESI No. 16 of 1997 before the ESI Court, Hubli, raises an interesting question as to the applicability of the provisions of the Act in respect of an establishment, which establishment admittedly at a given point of time had engaged the services of as many as 12 persons and if the applicability can be avoided by the subsequent dispute raised as to the actual number of employees employed in the establishment.2. The brief facts leading to the above appeal are that, the 1st respondent, a private limited company is an establishment, which undertakes fabrication job of making shutters on the orders placed by its customers. The respondent-company has also obtained registration certificate under the Shop...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Bahu and anr. Vs. Tahsildar and Taluk Executive Magistrate and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3560
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The delay in filing the petition is condoned for the reasons stated in the petition.2. Heard the State Public Prosecutor. The Orders of the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Bangalore South Taluk initiated under Section 145, Cr.P.C. dated 11-8-2000 is in challenge in the present petition. One set of the respondents in the proceedings before the Taluka Executive Magistrate have preferred Criminal Petition No. 891 of 2001 and another set have filed the petition seeking some reliefs. Since the challenge in both the petitions pertain to same order. The facts and points of law involved being common, both the cases are taken up for final hearing. On going through the impugned order as pointed out by the Counsel for the petitioner's, the Magistrate has initiated action under Section 145, Cr.P.C. on the basis of the Police report received on 4-11-1999, 8-11-1999, 17-11-1999 and 6-3-2000 in the aforesaid dates, some third parties said to have lodged report before the Polic...
Tag this Judgment!Munibyrappa Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: [2004]265ITR560(KAR); [2004]265ITR560(Karn)
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. In these group of appeals, after hearing the appellant's learned counsel for some time, we had issued notice to learned standing counsel who represents the Department. On that occasion on March 29, 2001, we had passed a speaking order which is reproduced below :'We have heard the appellant's learned counsel. He has, inter alia, raised a serious grievance with regard to the manner in which the Tribunal has disposed of these cases. Insofar as it is his contention that where legal issues of some consequence are canvassed and this is done on the basis of reported judgments, that it is not permissible for any forum to summarily disregard everything that has been argued. Learned counsel's submission is that this creates a serious handicap for both the parties, namely, the assessee and the department, insofar as whoever is aggrieved, will be faced with a difficulty when the case goes to the higher forum, if there is not even a reference to what was argued before the T...
Tag this Judgment!Munibyarappa Vs. Cit
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Kar)640
M.F. Saldanha, J.In these group of appeals, after hearing the appellants learned counsel for sometime we had issued notice to the learned standing counsel who represents the department. On that occasion on 29-3-2001, we had passed a speaking order which is reproduced below :'We have heard the appellants learned counsel. He has inter alia, raised a serious grievance with regard to the manner in which the Tribunal has disposed of these cases. Insofar as, it is his contention that where legal issues of some consequence are canvassed and this is done on the basis of reported judgments, that it is not permissible for any forum to summarily disregard everything that has been argued. Learned counsels submission is that this creates a serious handicap for both the parties namely, the assessee and the department, insofar as whoever is aggrieved, will be faced with a difficulty when the case goes to the higher forum, if there is not even a reference to what was argued before the Tribunal. We hav...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Ilias Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC353
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. State Public Prosecutor to take notice. The matter was taken up for final hearing. In the present proceedings, the continuation of trial against the petitioner in CC No. 1104 of 1998 is challenged on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gulbarga. 2. The petitioner is the accused in the case and he is shown to be absconding. Therefore, the case against the petitioner was split up and charge-sheet was laid against the other available accused 1 to 3 who faced trial in SC No. 24 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga for committing an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of the I.P.C. read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. After the trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused 1 to 3. The judgment of the Sessions Judge produced discloses that all the material witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The petitioner was arrested and proceedings were revived against him in the spli...
Tag this Judgment!Hvs Technologies Inc., United States of America Vs. Aeronautical Devel ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)KarLJ211
The Court 1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is directed against the order dated 6-8-1999 passed on LA. No. I in Miscellaneous No. 75 of 1999 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, rejecting the application which had been filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 seeking for a restraint order against the respondents from giving effect to a hank guarantee which had been issued by the second respondent-Bank in favour of the first respondent at the instance of the appellant. The application having been rejected and the Trial Court having declined to grant a restraint order as prayed for, the petitioner in the miscellaneous petition is in appeal before this Court.2. The brief facts leading to the above appeal are that:The appellant and first respondent herein had entered into a contract inter alia for supply of IPD measurement system which is an equipment involved in the development of a combat aircraft. The contract provided for various terms of supply -- period, tec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »