Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2006]143STC86(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. This case involves an interesting question of law requiring a decision at the hands of this Court. Facts in brief are as under :Petitioner registered dealer entered into works contract with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., in terms of annexure A. In respect of the said works contract undertaken, petitioner opted for composition of tax in terms of Section 17(6) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 in lieu of the amount payable under the said Act. Petitioner states that the works contract undertaken under the contract dated November 24, 1995 was executed over a period of three years. In as much as the petitioners have opted for composition scheme, the assessment in respect of the said assessment years were duly completed under Section 17(6) accepting the composition of tax for the assessment years 1996-97. While concluding the assessment tax has been levied at Rs. 15,49,049 which has already been remitted by the petitioner. After assessment proceedings, petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004CriLJ1958; ILR2004KAR358
ORDERK. Ramanna, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 14.3.2000 passed by the Addl. J.M.F.C. III Court, Raichur in C.C.No. 779/98, whereby the Court below allowed the application filed by the complainant through prosecutor under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The cognizance of the offences against these revision petitioners (Proposed Accused Nos. 9 & 10) have been taken and summons were issued. Therefore, feeling aggrieved by the order that the charge sheet filed about three years back and the charge sheet does not disclose involvement of the revision petitioners - proposed accused in the commission of the alleged offences. After recording the evidence of 7 witnesses, the complainant party with a sole intention to harass them had filed an application through A.P.P. to issue summons, which is contrary to the settled law. There is no consistent evidence on the alleged evidence to show a prima facie case to summon them.2. Heard the arguments of Ms. Chandrakala for revision petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR691; 2004(2)KarLJ605
ORDERRamanna, J. 1. An unsuccessful petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 20.1.2001 passed by the IV Addl. CMM, Bangalore in CC.No. 8001/98 whereby, the Trial Court dismissed the application filed by this revision petitioner/accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and held that there are sufficient materials to frame the charge against him for an offence under Section 406 and 420 of I.P.C. The main ground urged by the revision petitioner/accused is that even though the complainant has not produced any material to disclose the prima facie case, dismissed his application and framed the charge against him for the aforesaid offence which is contrary to law. The complainant ought to have been proceeded against him by filing a civil suit for recovery of the amount. The transactions entered into between the revision petitioner and the complainant is purely civil in nature and therefore, the allegation made in the complaint does not constitu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR695
ORDERRajendra Prasad, J.1. Common arguments have been advanced by the learned Counsel for petitioner. Common question of law is involved in both the cases. Hence, common order2. Both the petitions by the accused filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.praying the Court to set aside the orders dated 8.9.2003 passed inC.C.Nos. 3514/1998 and 3513/1998 respectively, on the file of the CivilJudge (Jr. Dn.) & J.M.F.C., Madikeri, wherein the learned Magistratehad ordered for issue of fine levy warrant against the accused underSections 418 and 421 Cr.P.C., challenging the legality and proprietyof the orders impugned. 3. The Court has heard the arguments of Sri P.K. Ponnappa,learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, and has also carefullyperused the material on record and has given its anxious thoughts overthe rival contentions raised. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contendedthat the material on record clearly shows that the orders impugned areillegal and unsustainable. The lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR1699
K. Ramanna, J.1. M.F.A 5967/2001 has been filed by the appellants/original land owners under Section 54(1) r/w. Section 30(1) of the Land Acquisition Act challenging the Judgment and Award passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)., Bagalkot on 30-8-2001 in L.A.C. No. 228/ 2000 whereby the reference Court has apportioned the compensation awarded by respondent No. 2 at the rate of 25% and 75%.2. M.F.A Cr. Ob 22/2002 has been filed by the Cross-Objector/ Anubhavadhar challenging the Judgment and Award dated 30-8-2001 passed in L.A.C. No. 228/2000 by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn)., Bagalkot on 30-8-2001, in so far as not awarding remaining 25% of compensation amount and to modify that this cross objector is entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation awarded.3. The brief facts leading to M.F.A. NO. 5967/2001 are that the appellants were the owners of the property bearing T.P.No. 262-H, measuring 69.89 sq mtrs situate at Ward No. 10, Bagalkot. The first respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR593
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J. 1. The petitioners claiming to be the owners of certain bits of lands have filed these Writ Petitions challenging the notifications issued by the State Government under Section 28(1) and (4) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')2. The State Government issued several notifications proposing to acquire certain lands under Section 28(1) of the Act for the purpose of establishing industries by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') on different dates. These notifications were followed by final notifications issued under Section 28(4) of the Act. Before issuing the said notifications the State Government issued a notification under Section 3(1) of the Act declaring the area as an industrial area comprising of the lands notified in the said notifications. Thereafter, the State Government has also issued another notification under Section 1(3) of the Act m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR1682
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners in these petitions have sought for a declaration, to declare that, the petitioners are entitled to pursue their course of study in the third respondent - College in the absence of any order under Rule 13(j) of the Bar Council of India Rules, which has been set aside by this Court on 2nd September 2003 in W.P. No. 26081/2003 vide Annexure-E. Further, they have sought for a direction, to direct the second respondent- University to permit the petitioners' appearance in the Examinations conducted at the end of the academic term and pursue their course of study without reference to, or giving effect to the communication dated 17th April 2003 vide Annexure D.2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder; -The petitioners herein are all students alleged to have been admitted to first year of 3 years LL.B. course for the academic year 2003-2004 in the third respondent -College. The petitioners are alleged to have undergone the necessary course or study a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(1)CTLJ494(Kar); 2004(2)KarLJ302
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 118 of 1994 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimoga, arising out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 332 of 1981 on the file of Additional Munsiff, Shimoga,2. The appellants are the defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. The first respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that they are entitled to a sum of Rs. 98,200/- held in the Criminal Court deposit in Crime No. 100 of 1977 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sugar. The second respondent is the first defendant in the suit. The plaintiff contends that the first defendant acted as its agent for collecting levy-paddy in Sorab Taluk area and the levy-paddy collected was kept in the godown of the third defendant. It is said that the godown of the third defendant was commandeered under the Defence of India and Internal Security Rules, as a godown to be used for storing the paddy to the extent of 1500...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(91)ECC586; 2004(165)ELT400(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner M/s. Cascade Systems is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-C an intimation dated 18.8.2003 issued by the Respondent.2. Petitioner is engaged in the business of import and sale of computer peripherals. In the month of September 1998, petitioner had imported processors (integrated circuits) and got them cleared by customs duty as applicable to integrated circuits falling under Chapter Heading 8542.19 of the Customs Act. Additional Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore issued a notice dated 11.1.1999 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why customs duty amounting to 3,42,950.00 is not to be demanded from him as the goods imported are populated circuit boards classifiable under Chapter Heading 8473.30 of the Customs Tariff Act. Petitioner requested the Additional Commissioner to adjourn personal hearing from 23.10.2001 to the first week of November 2001. However, the Additional Commissioner, ignoring the said communication, passed an order o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : III(2004)BC151; ILR2004KAR709; 2004(2)KarLJ283
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This is a case where the petitioner has assailed the proceedings initiated against him in PCR No. 143/96 before the J.M.F.C., Davangere, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Here is a case wherein complaint is filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by the respondent against this petitioner for the dishonour of cheque of Rs. 14,000/- wherein it is stated that there was said to be an assurance to make payment within two months but later Rs. 2,000/- was paid and for the remaining amount a cheque was issued and subsequently in the usual course the petitioner is said to have presented the cheque to the bank for payment, but the bank stating that there were insufficient funds dishonoured the cheque. The respondent after having issued notice for non-payment of the amount, this complaint came to be filed and on the complaint filed, the Magistrate after recording the sworn statement took cognizance and proceeded...
Tag this Judgment!