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.
Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. C.B.E. and C.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(91)ECC583; 2004(163)ELT10(Kar); 2004(1)KarLJ259
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner M/s. Grasim Industries Limited, Unit ; Rajashree Cement, is seeking to quash the Circular dated 31-3-2003 in No. 704/20/2003 issued by the first respondent in terms of Annexure-B and to direct the second respondent and his officers to permit the petitioner to avail back the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 3,41,965.00/- on the stock of light diesel oil ('LDO' for short) as on 28-2-2003.2. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of cement at its plant located at Adityanagar, Malkhed Road, Gulbarga District. Petitioner is having thermal power plant and diesel generating sets. In the diesel generating sets, petitioner is using LDO. Petitioner has been availing credit on the said LDO as an input under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Petitioner was availing credit on the said LDO as an eligible input. Rule 2(g) of the Cenvat Credit Rules ('the Rules') amended to exclude LDO as an input and in Explanation (1), LDO has been included in terms of Notification No. 13/2003 date...
Ramachandra Vittal Pai Vs. the Town Panchayath and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR352; 2004(2)KarLJ594
ORDERPatil, J.1. The petitioner, assailing the legality and the validity of the order dated 15.11.2003 in No. RTS:D:SR:31:2003-04 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-H, has presented this Writ Petition.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, he is the absolute owner of S. No. 527/A1/A Hissa 8 (CTS No. 2972) of Honavar village whereas the 3rd respondent is the owner of S.No. 527/A1/A Hissa 7(CTS No. 2975) of Honavar village. The petitioner filed an application before the 1st respondent for grant of licence to construct a shop premises. The 1st respondent, after considering the application and after holding necessary enquiry as required under the law, granted licence in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance of the licence granted by the 1strespondent, the petitioner has taken up construction. When things stood thus, the 3rd respondent, assailing the licence/permission granted by the 1st respondent, filed a petition before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent entertained the...
C. Some Gowda Vs. C. Ranga Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR705
ORDER 21 RULE 101 - The executing Court to adjudicate the questions as required under -- If the application under Order 21 Rule 97 is dismissed, there remains nothing to adjudicate under Order 21 Rule 101. HELD: When the decree holder has already taken the delivery of possession of property, and if there is no resistance to delivery of possession, the question of determining the title or possession, does not arise for the executing Court once again. Dismissing the MFA filed under Order 43 Rule 1 the Court. Held:Order 21 Rule 97 is a statutory remedy both to the decree holder as well as to the objector to have their respective say in the matter and get the proper adjudication before the executing Court. This provision is enacted with a view to see that multiplicity of proceedings and parallel proceedings are avoided. It is also possible that a stranger to the Decree could claim an independent right title and interest in the decreetal property and can offer his resistance before getting ...
North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Central Office Vs. De ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ1591; ILR2004KAR962; 2004(3)KarLJ93
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'Corporation') has preferred this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act'), calling in question the judgment and award dated 30th July, 2003 passed in M.V.C. No. 71 of 1996 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gadag (for short, 'MACT').2. The facts of the case in brief as narrated in the judgment and award are as under:On 5-4-1994 one Ningappa Belagajjari, in order to go to Laxmeshwar, boarded the bus bearing Registration No. KA-25/F-190 by climbing to the roof-top since, the said bus was jam-packed with passengers. The said bus belonged to the appellant and was driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. When the said bus reached Uma Vidyalaya at Laxmeshwar, another bus belonging to the K.S.R.T.C. came from the opposite direction and the driver of the busNo. KA-25/F-190 swerved...
State by Gandhinagar Police Station Vs. Shivaji
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ668
M.F. Saldhanha J.1. We have heard the learned Government Pleader on merits. The charge against the accused is one under Section 392 of the IPC and the facts of the case disclose that this is an obnoxious and antisocial offence insofar as the gold chain belonging to P.W. 1 was snatched from his neck at about 6.30 p.m. on 19-10-2002 on the Temple Road near Sibara Gate. The learned Government Pleader is right when he points out that this is one of the cases which would have resulted in a separate conviction because P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are uncle and nephew were travelling on a motor-cycle and they had stopped the motor-cycle because of a conversation between the P.W. 1 and the accused. The accused was known to them. He was seen by them because it was in the day time and there would have been absolutely no doubt about the fact that the Court could have convicted the accused because the police have recovered the gold chain from the accused. Unfortunately, on the crucial evidence of recovery th...
State of Karnataka Vs. N.R. Anthony Raj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2252; 2004(2)KarLJ346
1. We have heard the learned Government Pleader on merits. His first submission is that the entrustment in respect of which the offence has taken place relates to an amount of Rs. 19,005/- which is the amount collected by the sale of the tickets and this has nothing to do with the original tickets entrusted by the Corporation to the conductor. The Trial Court has wrongly proceeded on the footing that due to some procedural errors, the entrustment of the tickets has not been established. Learned Government Pleader is right when he points out that the offence alleged is in respect of the sale proceeds and not damages.2. The next submission canvassed by him is that where the rules required that the amount in question had to be deposited with the Corporation when the bus had returned after its journey to Bombay and if the same is not deposited, that it constitutes misappropriation of the amount is also technically correct. His submission is that even though the accused had deposited the fu...
Sundara Poojary Vs. Shekara Poojary and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ719; ILR2004KAR960
H.G. Ramesh, J.1. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is heard on merits and is being disposed of by this judgment.2. The appeal is by the claimant against dismissal of his claim for compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a motor accident that occurred on 12.11.1994. The claim was presented on 23.04.1997. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim on the ground that it was not permissible in law to condone the delay of more than 6 months in presenting the claim in view of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) as it stood as on the date of accident.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in view of omission of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act by Act No. 54 of 1994, there is no period of limitation for filing claim petitions under the Act. She relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD v. C. PADMA AND ANR. 2003 AIR SCW 5027 in support of her subm...
Rehman HussaIn Vs. Althaf HussaIn and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant172; ILR2004KAR239; 2004(2)KarLJ361
ORDER 16, RULE 1, 1A -- Reference on the point whether application seeking permission of the Court to file list of witnesses after 15 days from the date of settlement of issues maintainable and whether Rule 60(2) KCRP is violative or ultra vires Order 16 Rule 1 CPC. Court held that such application can be entertained and maintainable and Rule 60(2) of KCRP is intra vires Order 16 Rule (1) of CPC....
Vijaya Bank and anr. Vs. Naveen Mechanised Construction (Private) Limi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant199; 2004(1)CTLJ598(Kar); ILR2004KAR993; 2004(2)KarLJ338
1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 22-2-2002 passed in W.P. No. 26909 of 2000, wherein the learned Single Judge directed the 2nd appellant-Bank to release the securities and margin money as mentioned in First Schedule.2. The necessary facts in brief are, the 1st respondent is a leading National Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 and the 2nd respondent is its Branch. Petitioner 1 is a Private Company registered under the Companies Act and the 2nd petitioner is its Managing Director. The 2nd respondent-Bank extended credit facility of Rs. 2,460 lakhs and the 2nd respondent-Bank agreed to furnish Bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. 708.02 lakhs. The petitioners deposited the securities as mentioned in First Schedule to the writ petition and thereafter the second respondent-Bank had executed Bank guarantee. However, all the Bank guarantees were cancelled due to the completion of the work undertaken by the petitioner...
Bprl Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-2003
Reported in: [2006]143STC403(Kar)
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J. 1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are questioning the validity of show cause notices issued by the respondents under Section 29 read with Section 31 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the KST Act', for short). Since the facts involved in all these writ petitions are similar, these writ petitions are disposed of together.2. In Writ Petition No. 22009 of 2002, the petitioner is challenging the notice issued under Section 29 read with Section 31 of the KST Act, issued by the second respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay tax liability of Rs. 80,32,500. In W.P. 22013 of 2002, the petitioner is challenging the notice issued by the second respondent dated March 6, 2002 under Section 12A of the KST Act, calling upon the petitioner to pay sales tax liability of Rs. 25,65,000. Similarly in W.P. No. 22015, the petitioner is questioning the notice issued by the second respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay tax liability of Rs. 5,41,01,250.3. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »