Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2003Kant217; ILR2003KAR1653; 2003(1)KarLJ518
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. The short question that falls for consideration in these revision petitions is whether the Trial Court was justified in demanding the payment of duty and penalty in terms of Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 on an unregistered and unstamped sale deed relied upon by the petitioner as a condition precedent for letting the same into evidence in proof of a collateral transaction. The question arises in the following circumstances: 2. The petitioner is plaintiff in O.S. No. 899 of 1997 pending trial before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mysore. The suit prays for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and persons acting on their behalf from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The title to the suit property is traced to an unregistered sale deed dated 20-12-1989 allegedly executed by the father of the plaintiff in his favour. The sale deed was in the course of the evidence of the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR1643; 2003(1)KarLJ492
ORDERB.C. Bharuka, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 27 of 1999 pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sringeri, has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. His grievance is that the Trial Court by committing various errors of fact and law, has, by the impugned order, stayed further proceedings in the suit by wrongly resorting to the provisions of Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act').2. The relevant facts may be first stated in short. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the possession over agricultural land measuring 1 acre 24 guntas in Sy. No. 144 of Belandur Village. Defendant 3 is the brother of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff and defendant 3, the suit schedule lands, along with other lands, were in possession of the joint family as ancestral properties and the suit schedule land had fallen to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(2)KarLJ102
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The petitioner has called in question the communication sent by the Registrar of University of Mysore dated 1-8-2002, pursuant to a decision of the Syndicate of the University relieving the petitioner from the post of Director, Audio-Visual Research Centre, Manasa Gangotri, Mysore and repatriating as Professor, Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Manasa Gangotri, Mysore.2. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Journalism in the year 1983 and promoted as Reader in the year 1994. She was further selected and appointed as Professor in the same Department in the year 1996. In the year 1995, a Media Centre was constituted by the University Grants Commission by entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Mysore. The entire finance is borne out of UGC funds. The Media Centre is known as the Audio-Visual Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as 'AVRC' for short) with an object of upgrad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004ACJ198; 2003(4)KarLJ36
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Bellary whereby M.V.C. No. 347 of 1996 has been allowed in part and a sum of Rs. 1,39,0007- with interest at 9% p.a. awarded as compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor accident. The claimant has sought a suitable enhancement of the said amount apart from a direction that the amount so awarded may be recovered from the respondent-Insurance Company with whom the offending vehicle was insured at the relevant time.2. On 20-6-1995 at about 4 p.m., the claimant while walking near Ramanagara railway gate was knocked down by a jeep bearing registration No. MYT 8855 coming from the opposite direction and being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. The accident resulted in severe injuries to the claimant who was shifted to the hospital at Davanagere for treatment where he remained as an in-patient for nearly 4 months. A claim petition was in due cours...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(2002)ACC680
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bellary whereby the M.V.C. No. 347 of 1996 has been allowed in part and a sum of Rs. 1,39,000/- with interest at 9 per cent per annum awarded as compensation for the injuries sustained by claimant in a motor accident. The claimant has sought a suitable enhancement of the said amount apart from a direction that the amount so awarded may be recovered from the respondent Insurance Company with whom the offending vehicle was insured at the relevant time.2. On 20.6.1995 at about 4 p.m., the claimant while walking near Ramanagara Railway Gate was knocked down by a jeep bearing registration No. MYT 8855 coming from the opposite direction and being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. The accident resulted in severe injuries to the claimant who was shifted to the hospital at Davanagere for treatment where he remained as an inpatient for nearly 4 months. A claim petition was i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERKumar, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged in this Writ Petition the award of the Labour Court, Bangalore, dated 2.12.1994 passed in Reference No. 11/90 holding that the respondents are entitled to pay and allowances in the regular time scale pay from the date on which they completed one year of service in the second party management from the date of initial appointment and that they are entitled to receive DA, CCA, HRA and other allowances on par with non-teaching staff of Government Technical Institution and directing the petitioner to pay the same.2. The aforesaid award came to be passed on a reference made by the Government of Karnataka under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute which was referred for adjudication was as under: -'(1) Whether the demand of the non-teaching employees of Sri Siddartha Institute of Technology, Tumkur, for revision of payscales, CCA, interim allowance, pay and other allowances, on par with the pay scales, CCA and other...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2003]130STC92(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner is a registered dealer in dry fruits and kirana items under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short). He has been filing monthly and annual returns and paying taxes regularly. He got the stock transferred on September 19, 2002. The goods were dispatched in a motor transport vehicle and it was accompanied with all necessary documents. Delivery note in form 39-C was got printed by the petitioner on his own in terms of Rule 23-B(l-B)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 ('the Rules', for short). Petitioner got printed the said delivery note on a blue azure sheet. These goods were called at the check-post on September 20, 2002. On examination of documents, respondent issued a notice under Section 28A(4) of the Act proposing to levy penalty of Rs.1,65,600. A reply was filed in terms of annexure C. Petitioner with these facts questioned the notice dated September 20, 2002 at annexure B.2. Respondent entered appearance....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR3877
ORDERGururajan, J. 1. Petitioner is a registered dealer in dry fruits and Kirana items under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short). He has been filing monthly and annual returns and paying taxes regularly. He got the stock transferred on 19.9.2002. The goods were dispatched in a motor transport vehicle and it was accompanied with all necessary documents. Delivery Note in Form - 39C was got printed by the petitioner on his own in terms of Rule 23-B(1B) (b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 ('the Rules' for short). Petitioner got printed the said delivery note on a blue azure sheet. These goods were called at the check post on 20.9.2002. On examination of documents, respondent issued a notice under Section 28A(4) of the act proposing to levy penalty of Rs. 1,65,600.00. A reply was filed in terms of Annexure-C. Petitioner with these facts questioned the notice dated 20.9.2002 at Annexure-B. 2. Respondent entered appearance.3. Heard the learned Coun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(1)KarLJ506; (2003)IILLJ74Kant
ORDER1. The respondent is working as Sub-Post Master in the Department of Posts. A charge memo dated 12-6-1996 was issued to him by the disciplinary authority (first petitioner) containing three charges. Respondent denied the charges. No action was taken for nearly three years. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued an order dated 16-3-1999, dropping the proceedings. The said order reads thus:Whereas, disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 were initiated against Sri V.B. Ravin-dranathan, Postal Assistant, Wilson Garden S.O., Bangalore - 560 027 vide Memo of even number dated 12-6-1996.And whereas, Sri G.N. Puthuraya, then Deputy SPOs, Bangalore South Division, the prime witness in the case is expired.Now, therefore, the undersigned drops the said proceedings without prejudice to further action which may be considered in the case.2. More than four years thereafter, another charge memo dated 29-9-2000 was issued by the disciplinary authority to the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(1)KarLJ503
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. Heard learned Advocates on both sides. The petitioner before me has filed O.S. No. 20 of 1991 against the respondent-Corporation wherein, briefly stated his contention is that he is entitled to claim very heavy compensatory costs and damages from the Corporation for having virtually ruined the project that had been started by him and for having caused to the petitioner the consequential loss which he has claimed on a recurring basis on the footing that but for the alleged illegal acts that the project would have been a success. The suit has been filed in forma pauperis and the petitioner has already carried out one amendment where-under he has claimed an amount of Rs. 3,99,37,945/-. The earner amendment was allowed by the Court after which the petitioner filed one more interlocutory application whereby he has sought a further amendment to add on the claims for the subsequent periods upto March 1999 and to enhance his claim to Rs. 25,79,14,000/-. This has been d...
Tag this Judgment!