Karnataka Court June 2001 Judgments
Perfect Tube Centre Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-2001
Reported in: [2002]128STC293(Kar)
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J. 1. Issue rule. Statement of objections already filed. The matter is heard finally by consent.2. The petitioner is a dealer in mild steel flanges, registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'). The petitioner claims that M.S. flanges falls under entry 2(a)(xi) of the Fourth Schedule subject to sales tax at 4 per cent as declared goods in respect of which single point tax is leviable. Assessments have also been completed for the years 1994-1995, 1995-1996, 1996-1997, 1997-1998, and 1998-1999, as per the orders of assessment passed on November 16, 1995, April 2, 1997, January 7, 1998, July 2, 1999 and February 15, 2000 subjecting M.S. flanges to tax at 4 per cent under entry 2(a)(xi) of the Fourth Schedule read with Section 5(4) of the Act.3. When the matters stood thus, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Cross Verification III, South Zone, Bangalore (second respondent) inspected the business premises of the petitioner on A...
Tag this Judgment!Rudrappa Mahadevappa Humbi (Deceased) by L.Rs and ors. Vs. Shivalingap ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)KarLJ394
ORDERThe Court1. This is tenants' revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order of eviction passed on the ground of sub-letting by the Rent Court in H.R.C. No. 26 of 1977 and confirmed by the Revision Court in C.R.P. No. 13 of 1982.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are as under:3. Respondents herein are the landlords. They had leased an agricultural land measuring 3 acres 25 guntas bearing Sy. No. 61/2 situated atHaveri Town under a registered lease deed dated 14-7-1926 for a period of 50 years on a yearly rent of Rs. 100/-. The lease deed 'permitted the tenants to put up a 'Ginning Factory' at their cost, after obtaining the necessary permission, and at the end of the lease period, the lessees were permitted to remove all constructions made by them', when they handed over the vacant possession to the lessors-landlords herein.4. During the subsistence of the lease, the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter...
Tag this Judgment!Mothilal and anr. Vs. State by Circle Inspector of Police, Rural Circl ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4341; ILR2001KAR5093; 2002(4)KarLJ222
H.N. Narayan, J.1. The appellants are the 1st and the 3rd accused in S.C. No. 148 of 1996 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. They have challenged the order of conviction and sentence recorded against them by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and further sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 2 years for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has also granted concession under Section 428 of the Cr. P.C. It is stated that A-2 has not challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against her by the learned Sessions Judge by the same judgment. We are therefore, required to consider the case of the appellants alone in this appeal.2. It is the case of the prosecution that A-2, G.C. Renukabai alias Radha, wife of th...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Balaram Vs. Canara Bank, Overseas Branch, Bangalore and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4796
ORDERThe Court 1. The plaintiff has preferred this CRP against the order dated 29th August, 2000 passed by the Court below rejecting the application under Order 33, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and refusing to grant permission to sue as an indigent person.2. The plaintiff's case in brief are as hereunder:The plaintiff-Sri M.L. Balaram has stated in paragraph 3 of the plaint that the plaintiff is a proprietary concern which was carrying on business in manufacture and export of ready-made garments to various countries. The plaintiff is represented by its proprietor Sri M.L. Balaram. The plaintiff had approached the defendant for several credit facilities to set up an industry and the defendant has granted the money. The defendant bank has failed to protect the interest of the plaintiff by taking adequate steps and on account of the negligent act on the part of the defendant the plaintiff suffered huge loss in the business and he could not comply with his obligations with the foreign buyers. ...
Tag this Judgment!Gangaram's Infotech Vs. Dena Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas139(Kar)
R. Gururajan, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition is seeking for a direction to the Bank to furnish the details of S.B. Account No. 6672 of another customer of the Bank. 2. The petitioner states in the petition that the petitioner is having certain business transactions with one Aravind, son of Gajendra, in the matter of supply of goods on credit basis. The petitioner further states that four cheques were issued by the said Aravind and all those cheques for one reason or the other were dishonoured by the Bank. The petitioner says that the said Aravind has furnished his address as No. 65/1, G.K. Industries, Industrial Estate, Bangalore-59 and he has also furnished his telephone number as 8396536. On inquiry, petitioner noticed that no such person is residing in the aforesaid address. In these circumstances the petitioner sought for details of the account No. 6672 and the Bank in reply in terms of Annexure D refused to give the same. This endorsement is challenged before me. 3. Heard l...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Karnataka State Seeds Corpo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2001
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ1068Kant
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation under the provisions of Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short), directed against the order dated September 23, 1998, passed by the E.I. Court, Bangalore, in ESI Application No. 108 of 1989, being aggrieved by the allowing of the said application whereby the E.I. Court had set aside the order of the appellant-Corporation calling upon the respondent to implement the various provisions of the Act in respect of employees in its office at Bangalore and various branches outside Bangalore and demanding contributions under the Act. 2. The endeavour of the appellant-Corporation is to cover the employees of the respondent-Karnataka State Seeds Corporation under the provisions of the Act so that the benefits flowing under the provisions of the Act endure to the employees of the respondent-Corporation whereas the respondent-Corporation appears to be quite averse to t...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Veerabhadrappa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC411; 2001(4)KarLJ150
Kumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. This is yet another case where a wife has been ill-treated by the husband as a result of the ill-treatment given by the husband the wife either committed suicide or perhaps done to death. However, the charge against the accused lamentably was only under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.2. This is an appeal against acquittal and we have our limitations with regard to how the deceased died since the accused was tried only for an offence under Section 498-A of the TPC.3. The State being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kudligi in C.C. No. 203 of 1990 in acquitting the respondents-accused for an offence under Section 498-A of the IPC has preferred this appeal against acquittal.4. On 21-3-1983 the deceased Thippamma married the first accused. The 2nd accused is the mother of A-1. On 22-7-1986 the deceased was found dead under mysterious circumstances.5. In fact since the appeal against acquittal is for an offence u...
Tag this Judgment!L. Nagaraj and Others Vs. Doddaiah (Deceased) by L.Rs and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR3975; 2001(4)KarLJ493
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The petitioners claiming to be public spirited citizens have filed the present petition in public interest seeking the common relief of quashing the order dated 20-7-1989 made in LRA No. 30 of 1987 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows:Sy. No. 53 measuring 49 acres, 20 guntas situate at Mallasandra Village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk belonged to one Vasudeva Rao whose forefather received it as an inam in 1876. On the coming into force of Inams Abolition Act, the said land vested in the Government. Doddaiah, the first respondent herein, filed an application before the Land Tribunal, North Taluk in LRF A No. 1036 of 1980 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the said Sy. No. 53 of Mallasan-dra Village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The Tribunal, after enquiry, rejected the claim of the first respondent by its order dated 25-11-1986, on the grou...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok V. Patil Vs. Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited, Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)KarLJ559
ORDER1. Petitioner is questioning the consideration and acceptance of the tender submitted by respondents 3 and 4 pursuant to a notification dated 21-12-2000 bearing No. 12 of 2000 appeared in Times of India and Samyukta Karnataka in this petition.2. The respondent 1-Karnataka Road Development Corporation (for short, 'Corporation') issued a notification calling for tenders for maintenance of contracts on State Highways for three years. The tender provided for eligibility and qualification of the parties in terms of Clause 11. Petitioner is one of the applicants to the said tender and so also respondents 3 and 4. Petitioner in the petition states that the respondents have violated Tender Condition 11 in the matter of consideration of tender submitted by respondents 3 and 4. According to the petitioner respondents 3 and 4 do not comply with the Tender Condition 11(4) and therefore they are not eligible for consideration of their case by the respondent 1. Petitioner states in the petition...
Tag this Judgment!North West Road Transport Corporation Vs. Narayana Sidram Zingade and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR841]; ILR2001KAR4399; (2002)ILLJ44Kant
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J. 1. In this appeal, the North West Road Transport Corporation had challenged the common order dated March 18, 1998 in W.P. No. 1867/1998 c/w. W.P. No. 5613/1998 passed by the learned single Judge in so far as the same related to the second Writ Petition. When the first Writ Petition was filed by the respondent-workman, the second Writ Petition was filed by the appellant-North West Road Transport Corporation (henceforth in brief referred to as 'appellant-employer').2. In filing the second Writ Petition before the learned single Judge, the appellant-employer had challenged the order dated July 19, 1997 in KID. No. 81/1996 passed by the Labour Court, Bijapur, for, in passing the same, the Labour Court while setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent-workman, it had directed the appellant-employer to reinstate the respondent-workman with 50% back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. As against that order, the appellant-employer...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »