Karnataka Court October 2003 Judgments
P.R. Radhakrishna Setty and Sons Company Vs. A.N. Satish Babu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KarLJ223
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner is the tenant and respondent is the landlord. The landlord filed petition under Section 21(1)(h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (now repealed, hereinafter called as the 'Act'), seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that the landlord require the petition schedule premises for the bonafide use and occupation to start his own business in silk and that the tenant acquired a suitable alternate premises. The tenant resisted the petition denying the case of the landlord. After trial, the Trial Court by its judgment dated 27-7-2001 allowed the petition and granted six months time to the tenant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises. Being aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed this revision petition seeking to set aside the order of eviction and to dismiss the eviction petition.2. During the pendency of this revision petition the Act was repealed and the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the...
Tag this Judgment!Cit and anr. Vs. the GraIn Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Kar)166
Vishwanatha Shetty, J.In these appeals, the appellants have called in question the correctness of the order dated 15-1-2001, made in ITA Nos. 761, 762 and 763/Bang/1993 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) holding that-(1) the income received by the respondent by letting out the premises belonging to it; and (2) the interest received out of the funds deposited in Reserve Bank and other banks are exempted from payment of tax in terms of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). The assessments relate to the years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92.2. Facts in brief, which may be relevant for disposal of these appeals, may be stated as follows :The respondent is the Grain Merchant Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as the assessee), engaged in banking activity. The assessee filed its return for the assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. The assessing officer, while completin...
Tag this Judgment!Noor Mohammed Vs. K.T. Chandramouli Sharma (Deceased) by L.Rs.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ112
A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. This revision petition is by the petitioner-tenant in R.R. No. 15 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Mysore, aggrieved by the order dated 25-8-2003 dismissing the I.A. Nos. V to VII filed under Order 22, Rule 4, Order 22, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the petitioner-tenant.2. Heard Mr. KV. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Mr. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents.3. During the pendency of the revision filed by the petitioner-tenant on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Mysore in R.R. No. 15 of 2000 the landlord died. The legal representatives of the deceased landlord, respondent in R.R. No. 15 of 2000 have filed necessary application to come on record. The said application was opposed by the petitioner-tenant. The First Revisional Court dismissed as withdrawn the application filed by the legal representatives of the deceased landlord to come on...
Tag this Judgment!A.G. Chandrappagol Vs. the Assistant Executive Engineer, Ghataprabha R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KarLJ353; (2004)IILLJ460Kant
1. Appellant claims that he was appointed as Heavy Mazdoor on daily wage basis in November 1980 and worked continuously till his services were illegally terminated on 15-2-1983 without complying with provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short). He filed an application dated 14-2-1996 before the Labour Officer, Belgaum Division, to take up the matter in conciliation and failing settlement to take steps to refer the matter for adjudication. In pursuance of it, the State Government, by order dated 4-5-1998 referred the dispute as to the validity of the alleged termination, to the Labour Court, Hubli under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act. By award dated 5-1-1999, the Labour Court rejected the reference on the ground that appellant had sought reference after 13 years and the delay was not explained. Feeling aggrieved, appellant filed W.P. No. 23187 of 2002. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by order dated 19-6-2002 on the ground that the conclu...
Tag this Judgment!Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: 2003LC1022(Karnataka); 2004(163)ELT424(Kar); ILR2004KAR117
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. Petitioners are challenging Annexure-A a notification dated 1-3-2001 as unconstitutional in terms of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. They are also seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dtd. 6-1-2003 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue. They are also seeking for refund of Rs. 13,07,07,730/- together with interest in terms of Annexure-K.2. Brief facts of the case are as under :-The first petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacture of Hot Rolled Coils and Plates. Second petitioner is the General Manager and shareholder of the Company. Respondents 1 and 2 are the Union of India and Department of Revenue. Respondents 3 and 4 are the Customs Officials. Respondents issued a notification dtd. 26-4-2001 in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 which amended the notification dtd. 1-3-2001 by inserting Sl. No. 64-A in the matter of customs duty payable on Metallurgical Coke when ...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Tools Ltd. Vs. Dominion Hardware Stores
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: [2005]128CompCas376(Kar); [2004]55SCL535(Kar)
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,84,683.40 from the respondent with interest at 12% p.a. for the value of the goods supplied by the Company under liquidation to the respondent for which payments are not made.2. The claim of the petitioner was opposed by the respondents by filing statement of objections. They deny the entries made in the statement of accounts. In fact, they admit the supplies. But they contend that the entire amount due to the petitioner has been paid. In the legal notice issued prior to initiation of the proceedings the interest claimed is only 6%, whereas in the application 12% interest has been claimed which is without any basis, it is also contended that the claim is barred by law of limitation. Subsequently, they have filed additional objection contending that the entire claim is barred by limitation.3. Applicant has filed affidavit by way of examination-in-chie...
Tag this Judgment!North West Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by Its Chief Law Officer V ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR793]; ILR2004KAR1509
ORDERN. Kumar, J. 1. The first respondent- workman was initially appointed as a Conductor in the year 1969-70, according to him, on temporary basis. His services were terminated on the ground of unsuitability. The said order of termination was not challenged by the respondent -workman in a manner known to law. But when the Supreme Court in the case of S. GOVINDARAJU v. KSRTC AND ANR. : (1986)IILLJ351SC has delivered the judgment on 15.4.1996 holding that the order of termination of a Badali Conductor was in violation of principles of natural justice. Though the respondent had not challenged his termination, the KSRTC appointed the respondent as a Badali Conductor on 27.2.1988 and subsequently he was absorbed as a permanent employee. It is in the year 1994 the respondent made an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,71,823.21 towards back wages, difference in wages from 11.3.1977 to 31.3.1994 with interest at 18% p.a. His grievan...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Venugopal Vs. S.M. Krishna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR5019
ORDERVeerabhadraiah, J. 1. In this revision, the complainant has assailed the order of dismissal of the complaint in PCR No. 2451/2003 passed by the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore dated 1.4.2003. 2. The case of the complaint in brief is as follows:The famous cine star of Karnataka viz., Dr. Rajkumar was abducted on the intervening night of 30/31.7.2000 by the notorious forest brigand Veerappan and his associates. After the cine star was freed from the clutches of the forest brigand, the then IPS Officer viz., Sri C.Dinakar wrote and published a book 'Veerappan's Prize Catch: Rajkumar which contains the following writings.' '15 September 2000 The media is informed in the morning that Rajkumar was released at 4.30 a.m. today. Intelligence Chief P.S.Ramanujam rings me at about 10.00 a.m. to say that Rajkumar has been released. Poor chap, The Intelligence Chief does not know the source of intelligence of his own DGP. He has been tapping all my telephones and mobi...
Tag this Judgment!K.V.K. Amarnath Vs. Smt. Lakshmidevamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR310
Srinivasa Reddy, J 1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court-below rejecting the objections filed by him as barred by limitation, the petitioner-tenant has filed the present revision petition challenging the correctness and legality of the impugned order. 2. The petitioner-tenant was served with Court notice of the eviction petition filed by the respondent -landlord against him on 12.10.2002. On receipt of notice of the petition, the petitioner appeared through his counsel on 21.10.2002 and thereafter filed his objection statement on 10.2.2003. On presentation of the objection, the court-below took exception to the filing of the objection statement beyond the outer period prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code and rejected it. After rejection of the objection statement, the Court proceeded to record the evidence of the respondent-landlord. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.6.2003. 3. I have heard the learned Cou...
Tag this Judgment!State by Lashkar Police Station Vs. M.V. Srinivasa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KarLJ19
1. The facts of this case are relatively gross and in our considered view the police have virtually facilitated the acquittal of the accused through an incomplete investigation and if we may further amplify this statement through an unprofessional investigation. The facts of the case are very simple insofar as at about 5 p.m. on 24-4-2000 the accused tendered a hundred rupees note against the payment of his bill at Hotel Santhosh in Mysore City. The Manager who was vigilant and doubted the genuineness of the note checked it on a machine and found that it was counterfeit or rather that it was a fake currency note. He immediately telephoned the police who came there and apprehended the accused. Before taking the accused to the Police Station the note was rechecked on the machine and the police satisfied themselves that it was a fake note. According to the prosecution after the accused was taken to the Police Station he was searched in the presence of the two Panchas and 21 other hundred ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »