Karnataka Court April 2003 Judgments
Yemanappa Dudappa Marve (Since Deceased by His L.Rs.) and ors. Vs. Smt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3188
Sabhahit, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum, in Regular Appeal No. 17/1982 dated 18/12/1982 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No. 55/1975 dated 05/01/ 1982.2. The essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal are as follows:The parties would be referred to, with reference to their rank before the Trial Court.3. The plaintiff filed O.S.No. 550/1975 seeking for declaration that plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and to restrain the defendant from obstructing with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property comprised in Sy.No. 121/6 and also western half of house No. 673 in Rayatgalli, Madhavpur, Belgaum. It is averred in the plaint that she was given half share of the suit land half of the other land bearing Sy.No. 809 of Yallur Village and the suit house towards her maintenance under an agreement by her father-in-law as her hu...
Tag this Judgment!Yemanappa Dudappa Marve (Deceased by L.Rs.) and ors. Vs. Smt. Yellubai ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant396
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum, in Regular Appeal No. 17/1982 dated 18-12-1982 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S. No. 550/1975, dated 5-1-1982.2. The essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal are as follows:The parties would be referred to, with reference to their rank before the trial Court.3. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 550/1975 seeking for declaration that plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and to restrain the defendant from obstructing with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property comprised in Sy. No. 121/6 and also western half of house No. 673 in Rayatgalli, Madhavpur, Belgaum. It is averred in the plaint that she was given half share of the suit land and half of the other land bearing Sy. No. 809 of Yallur Village and the suit house towards her maintenance under an agreement by her father-in-law as her husband ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajsheker R. Nadgoud and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant126; 2003(6)KarLJ303
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 these 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 Capital Value is the sum at which the property is appraised for taxation. The expression 'capital value' used in the Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Soap Industries Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC641(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioner Gopal Soap Industries is seeking for various prayers. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. It carries on the business of Manufacturing handmade soaps. The petitioner established its village industry in the year 1992. The product manufactured and sold by the petitioner fell under entry 28 of the Fifth Schedule to the KST Act. The petitioner satisfied the prescribed condition under rule 25-A of the Rules. The petitioner was exempt from payment of tax. The petitioner is recognised by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as a village industry and granted recognition certificate in terms of the Rules. Rule 25-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules (now rule 24) lays down conditions and limitations that are to be satisfied for prescribed village industries to be eligible for exemption from levy of tax under the K.S.T. Act. Rule 25-B(3), as it then stood, made provisions for the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for g...
Tag this Judgment!Masay and ors. Vs. the Bangalore City Corporation and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant468; 2004(1)CTLJ132(Kar); 2003(4)KarLJ168
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. This public interest litigation has been filed with a prayer that the land measuring 4 acres 28 guntas situated by the side of Cox Town, Bangalore, be restored to its original use by quashing the Government Order bearing No. HUD/190/MNY/90, dated 2-9-1993 (Annexure-A) pursuant to which part of the land has been converted for exclusive use by the members of the 4th respondent, Indian Gymkhana, a private club, by putting a compound wall all around and erecting permanent structures thereon.2. The land in question situate on Wheelers Road, Cox Town and is meant for being used by the general public for sports and other related activities. This is now popularly known as Gymkhana Ground. During the year 1932, the respondent-Club requested the Corporation to permit them to use the land for sports activity and develop the same for public benefit. The Corporation by resolution dated 28-7-1932 resolved that the land be leased to the Club on lease at an annual rent of Rs. 5...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Masay and ors. Vs. the Bangalore City Corporation, Represented by ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2286
ORDERBharuka, J. 1. This public interest litigation has been filed with a prayer that the land measuring 4 acres 28 guntas situated by the side of Cox Town, Bangalore, be restored to its original use by quashing the Government Order bearing No. HUD/190/MNY/90 dated 2.9.1993 (Annexure-A) pursuant to which part of the land has been converted for exclusive use by the members of the 4th respondent, Indian Gymkhana, a private club, by putting a compound wall all around and erecting permanent structures there on. 2. The land in question situate on Wheelers Road, Cox Town and is meant for being used by the general public for sports and other related activities. This is now popularly known as Gymkhana Ground. During the year 1932, the respondent-Club requested the Corporation to permit them to use the land for sports activity and develop the same for public benefit. The Corporation by resolution dated 28.7.1932 resolved that the land be leased to the Club on lease at an annual rent of Rs. 5/-f...
Tag this Judgment!Mohandas Dattaram Prabhu and ors. Vs. U.F.M. Mukund Honnappa Naik
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant428; ILR2003KAR2420; 2004(2)KarLJ126
Srinivasa Reddy, J 1. In this appeal the appellants-plaintiffs call in question the judgment and decree of the Court-below allowing the appeal and remanding the matter back to the Trial Court with a direction to allow the parties to lead further evidence and to dispose of the case afresh.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the defendant has no right whatsoever in an area measuring 0.4.0 of Sy.No. 113 of Shedageri Village and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction. The plaintiff also gave the boundaries of the area in respect of which the suit was filed. The plaintiff claimed that the suit land was granted to them on 19.1.1972 under a Kabulayat executed by him in favour of the Government and possession was handed over to him on 21.1.1972 and mutation entry No. 3023 has also been effected in that regard. The plaintiff further averred that on 1.10.1973 the survey of the land was conducted and in the month of December, 1972 an area of 0-2-5 in Sy. No. 113 and 114...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Nagaraj and anr. Vs. the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)KarLJ306
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.1. One B.V. Satish has filed Writ Petition No. 45082 of 1999 stating that he was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 6-8-1983 in the 2nd respondent-Bangalore City Corporation (hereinafter called as the 'Corporation') on a consolidated pay of Rs. 910A per month and regularised on 14-5-1990. The Government framed regulations called the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Services (General) Cadre and Recruitment Regulations ('C and R Regulations' for short), providing for method of recruitment and qualifications for several categories of posts on the establishment of the Corporation, vide order Annexure-A. According to the C and R Regulations, the recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (now called as Assistant Engineer) is 25% by direct recruitment and 75% by deputation from the Government service, and the recruitment to the post of Supervisor (now called as Junior Engineer) is 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion of Maistries, Work Inspectors etc. The...
Tag this Judgment!T. Ramachandra and ors. Vs. N. Ranganatha Chettiar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant489; 2003(4)KarLJ467; (2003)IIILLJ976Kant
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. This case is a glaring example of gross abuse of the judicial process by perpetuating fraud on the Court coupled with laxity and casualness with which some of the Trial Judges are conveniently falling prey to such unscrupulous and well-planned mischiefs designed to take benefit of delays and procedural wrangles in our adjudicatory system.2. Petitioners 2 and 3 are sons of petitioner 1. They had originally filed revision petition in C.R.P. No. 2264 of 2002 on 27-5-2002 before this Court praying to set aside the order dated 9-5-2002 passed in O.S. No. 3091 of 2002 on the file of the XXIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, and for directing restoration of their possession over the suit schedule property on the ground that the encumbrance certificate produced by the respondent along with the suit plaint which was the main foundation for seeking relief in the suit, was forged and concocted one. Anyhow, in view of the amendment made to Section 115 of the CPC by t...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumanthappa and ors. Vs. Gurappa (Dead) by L.Rs and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KarLJ573
V.G. Sabhahit, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Madhugiri, in R.A. No. 51 of 1984, dated 22-2-1988 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Munsiff, Pavagada, in O.S. No. 111 of 1980, dated 16-7-1984.2. The essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal are as follows.The parties would be referred to with reference to the rank before the Trial Court. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 111 of 1980 seeking for declaration of title to the schedule property and for cancellation of sale deed dated 3-5-1984 executed by second defendant in favour of first defendant and for permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that Yengappa had two sons, the plaintiff and his elder brother Akkalappa and they constitute joint in the family, Akkalappa died in the year 1958 being issueless and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »