Karnataka Court March 2003 Judgments
Vima Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (intl.) and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: [2006]143STC486(Kar)
ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. These petitions are filed under Section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'), challenging the order of the Tribunal, under which the orders passed by the first appellate authority and the assessing authority have been confirmed.2. With consent, taken for final hearing and heard. It is submitted for the petitioner-assesses that the Tribunal as well as other authorities under the Act committed an error in holding the petitioner as 'manufacturer' and, even otherwise, when the turnover of the petitioner during the relevant 3 periods in question was less than Rs. 2 lakhs, it was not liable to pay tax but, still wrongly interpreting Section 5(5)(b)(ii) of the Act held that the petitioner is liable to pay tax, as determined by the assessing authority and consequently, all the said orders require to be interfered with. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned orders. Perused the records caref...
Tag this Judgment!Ennen Castings Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. M.M. Sundaresh and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: [2003]114CompCas800(Kar)
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. By order dated February 20, 2003, Company Application No. 110 of 2003 was allowed. By inadvertence in the operative portion of the order it is mentioned that C. A. No. 423 of 1998 is also allowed which is obviously a mistake. It is for the correction of the said mistake the case is posted for today 'for being spoken to'.2. Office is directed to delete the word '423/1998 and' in paragraph 14 of the order....
Tag this Judgment!Kyhrunnissa Vs. Shabbeer Ahmed
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)KarLJ103
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24-6-1999 passed by the Trial Court allowing the petition, filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC, setting aside the ex parte order of eviction dated 30-8-1997 in H.R.C. No. 501 of 1997 and directing restoration of possession of the premises to the respondent herein.2. The petitioner is the landlady. She filed eviction petition against the respondent-tenant. The Trial Court passed ex parte order directing eviction. The landlady executed the same and took possession of the petition schedule premises. The tenant filed Miscellaneous Case No. 199 of 1998 praying to set aside the ex parte order of eviction. Since the same was allowed directing the landlady to restore possession of the schedule premises to the tenant, this revision petition is filed urging various grounds.3. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the order under revision.4. The contention of Mr. Kashinath Rao Patil, learned...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Das Vs. State by Commercial Street Police Station
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2452; 2003(4)KarLJ30
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J.1. This petition is taken up for final disposal with consent of parties.The petitioner is the accused. He is in judicial custody. The petitioner had the benefit of bail in the Trial Court, but was unable to take the advantage of the bail order on the ground that he was not able to fulfill the conditions imposed by the Trial Court while enlarging him on bail. The petitioner was directed to be enlarged on bail by the Trial Court on him executing a bond for Rs. 30,000/- with two solvent sureties. The Trial Court also imposed certain other conditions such as, that the petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall mark his attendance before the Commercial Street Police Station on every Sunday between 11.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. until further orders. Since the petitioner was not able to get two solvent sureties, the petitioner is still languishing in jail.2. On 3-7-2002 the petitioner was arrested under Section 20(b) of the Narc...
Tag this Judgment!D.S. Srinivas Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Kar)269; ILR2003KAR3470; [2003]262ITR209(KAR); [2003]262ITR209(Karn)
R. Gururajan, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition is challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, annexure G, dated March 12,1999. 2. The petitioner-assesses filed his return for the assessment year 1994-95 declaring the income at Rs. 41,550. He claimed depreciation on motor vehicle in terms of Section 32(1) of the Act. It was accepted. Even in the regular assessment after verification of the books of account, statement and other particulars filed by the petitioner, the claim was allowed in terms of the order dated April 17, 1995. Thereafter a notice under Section 154 was issued by the first respondent proposing to rectify the assessment made under Section 143(3) of the Act in respect of depreciation. Objections were filed. Thereafter an order was passed withdrawing the depreciation granted to the petitioner. A representation was filed and the petitioner was unsuccessful in filing the representation. An order in terms of annexure G was passed. Annexure G is challeng...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. the Karnataka State Transpo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant326; 2004(2)KarLJ87
S. R. Nayak, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 13-10-2000 in Writ Petition No. 23379 of 2000. The appellant is the writ petitioner. In the above writ petition, the appellant sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 20-2-1999 of the Regional Transport Authority, Shimoga Region, Shimoga, respondent No. 2 herein, granting variation of conditions of permit of the fourth respondent bearing No. 19/97-98 and the order of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, respondent No. 1 herein, dated 2-5-2000 in Revision Petition No. 1453 of 1999. 2. The background facts leading to the filing of the above writ petition may be noted briefly as under :On an application made by the fourth respondent herein, the second respondent by his order dated 20-2-1999 granted variation of conditions of the permit of the fourth respondent bearing No. 19/97-98 by way of curtailment of the route from Anavatti to District border a...
Tag this Judgment!G.B. Bhandaragal (Deceased) by L.R. Vs. Assistant Registrar of Co-oper ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)KarLJ412
K. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. The appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 76 of 1996 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagalkot, arising out of judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff Court, Hungund in O.S. No. 22 of 1990. The appellants herein are the legal representatives of the plaintiff. One G.B. Bhandaragal, plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,996.2 ps. with costs and interest from the respondents. The material facts leading to the appeal are stated thus.2. The deceased plaintiff G.B. Bhandaragal was the Chairman of Vyvasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha (in short 'VSSSN'), Ilkal, for the period 1981-1983. It is said that the respondents 3 to 11, who are the Directors of the VSSSN, Ilkal manipulated the records showing the utilisation of funds of the Society by the plaintiffs and got initiated the proceedings under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act and eventually an award came to be passed against the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Khoday India Limited Vs. Nil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3091
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner - company formulated a scheme of arrangement between the company and its equity shareholders. The said scheme envisages an exit option to those equity shareholders for the cancellation of equity shares on the face value of Rs. 10/- a cash warrant of Rs. 25/- per share to the equity shareholders or average of six months high and low at the stock exchange such shareholders are interested whichever is higher is paid.2. This Court on an application made by the petitioner for convening a meeting of the shareholders, secured creditors and unsecured creditors of the company to consider and approve the said scheme, by an order dated 6.12.2001 in CA.No. 765/2001 granted the permission sought for and directed that the meeting shall be held on 24.1.2002 at 10.00 a.m. at Registered Office. Accordingly, a meeting was convened and the scheme was approved by the requisite majority and thereafter the Chairman of the meeting has submitted his report, which was accepte...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Khadar Vs. Abdul Subhan Khan and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KarLJ587
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramanagara in R.A. No. 63 of 1994 arising out of judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff Court, Channapatna in O.S. No. 200 of 1989.2. The appellant is the plaintiff, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the first respondent not to open a door on the western wall of the first respondent house and the said suit was dismissed. It was the contention of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the defendants' house property bearing No. B. 372/1, B.M. Road, Channapatna adjoins the house property of the plaintiff bearing No. B/371. In between the said buildings a passage is situated measuring 5 ft. x 50 ft. The plaintiff claims that the passage exclusively belongs to him and that the defendant has no right to use the passage in any manner. It is said that if the defendant attempted to put up a door on the western wall of the house to have an access to the pas...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Anjanappa and anr. Vs. Yurej Agencies Private Limited and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2565; ILR2004KAR1883
ORDERBannurmath, J.1. This revision petition was filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26-3-2001 passed by the learned XIV Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore in C.C. No 24949/1997 convicting the petitioner/ accused for the offence under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo S.I for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 63,00,000/- with default sentence. It was ordered that the fine amount be recovered from the accused and out of the same, a sum of Rs. 57,50,000/-, be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached the learned XIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Crl.A.No. 15025/2001 who also affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence and hence the present revision petition.2. This revision petition was admitted on 22-3-2002, pending final disposal. In the mean while, on 17-2-2003, the learned Counsel for the petitioner filed a memo stating that t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »