Karnataka Court April 2003 Judgments
Parashuram and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary, Departme ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-24-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2953; 2003(5)KarLJ523
ORDERKumar, J.1. Issue Rule. 2. Heard both the parties. As the question involved in all these Writ Petitions is common and having regard to the urgency of the matter and the short point that arises for my consideration, by consent of the parties, these Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal and disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions who are the elected representatives of the respective Agricultural Produce Marketing 2956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS 2003 KARNATAKA SERIES Committees have challenged the notification dated 9.4.2003 issued by the 1st respondent - Government of Karnataka postponing the elections to all the 110 Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees specified in the annexure for a period of six months and further appointing Administrators in place of the office bearers in respect of the said 110 Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees after the expiry of the term of their office. 4. The petitioners were all duly elected members of...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Subbamma and anr. Vs. the Executive Officer, Nanjangud Panchayat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ99
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioners were elected as the members of the Taluk Panchayat. Subsequently, they were elected as Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat respectively on 19th March, 2002. The term of office is twenty months and it expires on 19th November, 2003. Thirteen members of the Taluk Panchayat on 7th February, 2002 requested the petitioners to call for a special meeting to consider the resolution regarding want of confidence in the petitioner. The first petitioner did not call for the meeting. A requisition was given to the Chief Officer to call for a meeting and a meeting notice was issued on 15th February, 2003. The said meeting notice was challenged by the petitioners before this Court in Writ Petition No. 7350 of 2003. The said writ petition was allowed. The meeting notice dated 15th February, 2003 was quashed and this Court issued the following directions:'A direction is issued to the first petitioner herein viz., the Adhyaksha of Taluk Panchayat to recei...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Savitha Gupta Vs. Smt. Nagarathna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant426; 2003(4)KarLJ14
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The defendant has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 26-2-2003 passed in O.S. No. 2053 of 2002. By the impugned order, the Court below has refused to entertain the written statement which was filed beyond the period prescribed under Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. The suit is one for ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule premises. It was filed on 1-4-2002. On 5-4-2002 summons were directed to be issued to the defendant through Court and by RPAD returnable by 2-7-2002. The order dated 2-7-2002 of the Court below shows that the summons were served and the defendant appeared through an Advocate. Though under the amended Order 8, Rule 1 the defendant was required to file written statement within one month of service of summons, she failed to do so. She did not make any prayer even for extending the time which could have been upto 90 days under proviso to the said rule. The case was accordingly posted for evid...
Tag this Judgment!Nagarika Seva Trust (R) and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)KarLJ79
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. A tax reform made for levy, assessment and collection of property tax by the State Government by amending certain provisions of Definition Clause and Chapter VI -- 'Municipal Taxation' of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, by the Karnataka Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2000 (Karnataka Act 28 of 2001), is the subject-matter of this batch of writ petitions.2. The amended provisions basically provide for tax base, tax rate, coverage and collection. The first two issues involve legal and policy issues and others are machinery and procedural provisions for collection of taxes.3. The valuation of the property for the assessment of property tax prior to the amendment of the Act was being done on the basis of the annual rent that the property would fetch from year to year and now the legislative entry speaks of Taxable Capital Value'. Taxable value is the sum at which the property is appraised for taxation. The expression 'capital value' used in the Act is not howe...
Tag this Judgment!Afza Teachers Training Institute, by Its Secretary and anr. Vs. Region ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2385
ORDERRangavittalachar, J.1. The Afza Teachers Training Institute represented by Mr. Siraj Ahmed Shareef and his wife Smt. Roohi Afza, claiming to be the Secretary and President of the Society respectively have filed these two petitions with a prayer for quashing the order of the National Council for Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as NCTE) dated 30.12.2002 granting recognition for running the Afza Teachers Training Institute represented by one Smt. Noor Afza Banu.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition as found from the records, are as under:A Society called as Afza Education Society was registered before the Registrar of Societies in Karnataka under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act in Regn. No. 34/84-85 dated 23rd July 1984 at Kolar. This society established a Teachers Training Institute under the name of 'Afza Teachers Training Institute' in a rented premises belonging to one Lakshmidevamma at Municipal Katha No. 4272 in Gandhinagar Area, Bangar...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Electronic Research Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Kar)258
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. The CIT, Bangalore, is before me aggrieved by the rejection of an application filed by the Department for recalling the order passed by the Tribunal in terms of Annexure 'M'.2. M/s Electronic Research Ltd. filed its return of income for the asst. yr. 1995-96. It was completed under Section 1.43(3) of the Act on 31st March, 1998. Three issues were raised in the said assessment order. The first respondent preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the CIT(A). The claim of depreciation was also a subject-matter in the said proceedings. The depreciation disallowances is to the extent of Rs. 4 crores on the asset purportedly leased out. The first appellate authority held in favour of the first respondent.3. The Finance Act (No. 2), 1998, introduced a scheme known as 'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme'. Subsequent to the notification of the said scheme, the first respondent filed second appeal 6'efore the second respondent, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for sho...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Electronic Research Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: [2003]262ITR361(KAR); [2003]262ITR361(Karn)
R. Gururajan, J. 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore, is before me aggrieved by the rejection of an application filed by the Department for recalling the order passed by the Tribunal in terms of annexure M. 2. Electronic Research Ltd. filed its return of income for the assessment year 1995-96. It was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on March 31, 1998. Three issues were raised in the said assessment order. The first respondent preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The claim of depreciation was also a subject-matter in the said proceedings. The depreciation disallowance is to the extent of Rs. 4 crores on the asset purportedly leased out. The first appellate authority held in favour of the first respondent.3. The Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, introduced a scheme known as 'karnataka Vivad Samadhan Scheme'. Subsequent to the notification of the said scheme, the first respondent filed second appeal before the second ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Prasanna Parvathamba Vaidyanatheshwara Trust Vs. M.S. Radhakrishna ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)KarLJ479
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J.1. With the consent of the learned Counsels appearing on both sides, this petition is taken up for final disposal.2. The only question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the Court can permit filing of written statement by the defendant beyond the period of 90 days from the date of service of summons.3. Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code'), reads as follows.--'1. Written statement.---The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall hot be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons'.4. There is a clear mandate under the Code that written statements must...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. Prasanna Parvathamba Vs. Sri. M.S. Radhakrishna Dixit
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant345
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this petition is taken up for final disposal.2. The only question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the Court can permit filing of written statement by the defendant beyond the period of 90 days from the date of service of summons. 3. Order VIII, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) reads as follows :-- '1. Written statement.-- The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.' 4. There is a clear mandate under the Code that written statements mus...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanna Parvathamba Vaidyanatheshwara Trust, Represented by Its Presi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3097
ORDER VIII RULE 9--Application of--Not confined only to set-off or counter claim. Order VIII Rule 10 also makes references to Rules 1 and 9 of Order VIII. When such is the position, obviously Rule 9 is not confined only to set off or counter claim. If that be so, there would not be a reference to Rule 1 and Rule 9 in Rule 10. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »