Karnataka Court December 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Government of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: [2004]135STC343(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner in these petitions is challenging the order passed by the third respondent annexures U1 to U5 and the consequential demand notices annexures W1 to W8. Petitioner is also seeking for a direction to the respondent that the power under Section 28(6) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 cannot be exercised by the authorities when a dealer opts for either of the schemes under the Notifications (1) G.O. No. CI 30 SPC 96 dated March 15, 1996 and (2) G.O. No. FD 32 CSL 96(I) dated November 15, 1996, vide annexures A and B. Petitioner also questions the provisions contained in explanation V(3), annexure III of the notification dated November 15, 1996. Petitioner's last prayer is for a direction to the respondents to obtain a decision at the hands of the State Level Committee in the light of annexures A and B.2. Petitioner-company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of soft drink beverages. Petitioner is a registered dealer. The State Government ...
Jayalakshmi Wine Land Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: (2007)7VST593(Karn)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner is before me seeking for various prayers. Memo filed by the petitioner enclosing the original notice is taken on record.2. Petitioner is a dealer in liquor. Petitioner's premises was inspected on March 30, 1993 and it was found that the monthly tax which was required to be paid has not been deposited. Post dated cheques were collected from the petitioner. Assessment proceedings were concluded and a notice was issued to the petitioner in this regard. Thereafter, a penalty of Rs. 5,45,023 was levied on the petitioner. The same was challenged right up to this court by the petitioner. According to petition averments there was a scheme available with regard to waiver of penalty and interest in terms of the budget speech for the year 1999-2000 of the then honourable Deputy Chief Minister. In terms of the same, petitioner made an application. Petitioner refers to correspondence between him and the respondents in this regard. Ultimately, respondents issued an...
The State Vs. Peddahanumappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2255
M. F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the learned State counsel and the learned counsel who represents the respondents-accused. This is a case in which there are as many as 34 persons who have been charge-sheeted with having committed offences of being members of an unlawful assembly, rioting, causing injuries to as many as six of the prosecution witnesses, attempt to murder and murder. The allegation is that these accused persons formed a group, that they were armed with deadly weapons such as cycle chains, choppers, axes, clubs, stones and the like and in the course of the incident. Thirumalappa sustained fatal injuries and six other persons sustained injuries, some of which are serious injuries. The learned trial Judge recorded an Order of acquittal in favour of the accused which order is under challenge through the present appeal.2. Pursuant to notice from this Court, the respondents have appeared through their learned counsel. We have heard both the learned counsel in appeal on facts...
A. Bihari and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Spp. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2846
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the contesting respondent.This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 14.02.96 passed by the learned Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C.No. 28727/96 acquitting the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 279 & 304A of IPC.2. The brief facts leading to the present revision petition are as follows:In respect of an accident on 14.9.96 at about 12 noon on Dhanwanthri Road, Bangalore, the respondent is tried in C.C.No. 28727/96 for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution has led the evidence of 3 witnesses and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.6. The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence gave benefit of doubt to the accused only on the ground that the prosecution has examined only one eyewitness and whose evidence, is not corroborated by any other independent eyewitness.3. It is to be mentioned here itself that even though prima facie the observation of the Trial Court for acquitt...
Manjunath and anr. Vs. Smt. Yellawwa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1661
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs in conducting motor vehicles cases before the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal. This Court cannot but observe that Motor Vehicles claims Tribunal are constituted for the purpose of providing relief to those who suffer injury or lose their bread earning member. Of late the laudable object of providing rightful compensation to rightful person is given a complete go by and instead several unjustifiable acts are happening in these matters. Time has come for this Court to remind all those who are in charge of the claim compensation cases to be vigilant to arrest unlawful gain by unlawful persons in legal forums.2. Petitioners in this petition is challenging the judgment and award passed by the District Judge and MACT, Gadag in MVC No. 42/2000. According to petition averments, petitioners mother namely Smt Ningavva was the wife of Sri Bassappa Piddanavar who was working as Head Mastri with R-5. The mother of the petitioner d...
V.S. Kashyap Vs. the Debt Recovery Tribunal and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3166
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed against the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal rejecting the request made by him to cross examine the witness under Rule 12(6) of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993.2. Tribunal has held that the parties who seek to cross-examine the opponent should show sufficient grounds to cross-examine. Petitioner has not stated the grounds on which he, wants to cross-examine.3. A reading of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 does not indicate that the right of an applicant who wants to cross examine the witness is very limited and restricted It is fundamental principle of law that every adversary is entitled to cross examine on is set-aside as being opposed to the principles of law. Matter is remitted with a direction to the tribunal to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the witness i.e, P.W.1 without seeking any further adjournment on the next date of hearing.Petition disposed off....
Ramasita Finance and Investments Private Limited Vs. Smt. Meenakshi Na ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC72; 2004CriLJ1029; ILR2004KAR421; 2004(2)KarLJ279
ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J. 1. The revision Petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No. 462/2001 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad, in a case filed against a company and its directors alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The case of the complainant is that in the course of transaction between the complainant and accused No. 1 - company, a cheque dated 18.1.2000 for Rs. 60,000/- drawn on Malaprabha Grameena Bank, Dharwad Main Branch had been issued by the accused, which cheque, when presented for encashment, was dishonoured on the ground of 'insufficiency of funds' and that despite service of requisite notice, the accused had failed to pay the amount. The accused No. 1 is a company and the accused Nos. 2 to 4 are the directors of the said company. According to the complainant, cheque had been signed by accused No. 2 on behalf of accused No. 1 - company.3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwa...
Kumari Sreedevi Vs. Ramesh S. Bagi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC415; 2004ACJ1363; 2004(2)KarLJ202
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The claimant-injured, a minor girl of aged 4 years represented by her natural guardian father, has preferred this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act'), being aggrieved of the judgment and award dated 7-2-2002 passed in M.V.C. No. 1609 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Chief Justice (Senior Division) and Assistant Sessions Judge, Athani (for short, the 'MACT').2. The fact that the claimant sustained grievous injuries in an accident that occurred on 14-4-1998 involving a motor vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent, insured with the 2nd respondent and driven by the 3rd respondent, is not in dispute. The finding of the MACT that the motor vehicle involved in the accident was driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by the 3rd respondent had caused the accident resulting in injuries to the claimant, is not in controversy and therefore, there is no need ...
Dhl Worldwide Express (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Airfreight Employees Union, Re ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR399]; ILR2004KAR1307
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and has a separate legal entity carrying on the business in the name and style of 'DHL Worldwide Express (I) Private Limited'. Before formation of this petitioner-Company in the year 1981, the business which it is carrying on was formed part of division of a Company by name 'Airfreight Limited'. It is in 2001, the said courier business was spin off into a separate entity namely, the petitioner-company. Before separation of Airfreight Limited, the workers of Airfreight Limited, had formed an Association by name 'Airfreight Employees' Union', the 1st respondent herein. At the time of incorporation of the Company in 2001, the Workmen employed in Courier division were taken over by the petitioner-Company and thereafter, they became the employees of the petition-company and they ceased to have any connection whatsoever with the parent company. 2. The 1st respondent-Trade Union addressed...
Smt. Bhimavva and ors. Vs. Shankar @ Adya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ301; ILR2004KAR3562
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. These appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Addl. district Judge and MACT, Gulbarga, whereby MVCs No. 348, 349 and 350 of 1989 have been allowed in part and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- each awarded as compensation for the death of Sri Hanumantharaya, Smt. Narasamma and a minor child named Srimanth in a road accident. The claimants have appealed to this Court for a suitable enhancement of the said amount and for holding the insurance company liable to make payment of the amount payable to them.2. The deceased Sri Hanumantharaya, his wife Smt. Narasamma and their two minor children named Adeappa and Srimanth were on 11.7.1989 travelling in a tractor - trailer owned by Sri Pampanagouda and insured with the 3rd respondent - insurance company. When the Tractor which was carrying stones for construction of a hay shed of the owner reached near Dyamnal village, it met with an accident and turned turtle resulting in the death of the aforementioned three persons ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »