Karnataka Court April 2003 Judgments
Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. Shyam Prasad and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ359
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel who represents the appellant-APMC in both these appeals, which concern a common point of law. The dispute pertains to the APMC having seized two consignments, one of pepper and the other of arecanut on the ground that the requisite market fee had not been paid and the contention was that no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming from the party who was transporting the goods in question. The goods were therefore seized in exercise of the powers under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, which empowers the APMC to seize that quantity of the goods as are sufficient to cover the market fee and penalty. The reason why the consignment was seized was because, according to the APMC officials when the driver of the vehicle was questioned, since he was unable to account for the goods, more importantly, for the payment of the market fee, that he abandoned the vehicle and ran away. In any event, the greater par...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and anr. Vs. Smt. Nanjamma and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC111; 2005ACJ1534; ILR2003KAR2228; 2003(4)KarLJ291
Rajendraprasad, J.1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.12.2000 passed in M.V.C. No. 717 /1992 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & MACT-IV, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, questioning the legality and validity of the judgment impugned, particularly regarding fastening of liability on it.2. Sri P.B. Raju, learned Counsel for appellant, strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the judgment and award of the Trial Court is illegal and invalid so far as fastening of liability on the Insurance Co. is concerned. The material on record also shows that as on the date of accident, patently, the driver of the vehicle in question did not possess valid Driving Licence and during pendency of the claim petition, the owner of the vehicle died and L.Rs. of the owner had not been brought on record. The learned Counsel relied upon the following decision is support of his contentions:1...
Tag this Judgment!Deepam Silk International and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by the ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4072; [2004]134STC337(Kar)
ORDERGururajan, J.1. Petitioners are before me challenging the constitutional validity of levy of tax on silk fabrics under Section 4B of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act ('the Act' for short). They are also seeking for a declaration to declare that the notification dated 25.8.2001 issued by the first respondent under Section 12-A of the Act has the effect of exempting levy of tax on silk fabrics for the entire assessment year commencing from 1.4.2001. They are also seeking for various other prayers. 2. Petitioners state in these petitions that the Act was initially enacted to levy tax on commodities like Cigarettes and the luxuries provided in a hotel. The said Act was amended by Act No. 5 of 2001 and 'silk fabrics' were inserted as item No. 4 in the Schedule to the act w.e.f. 1.4.2001. An association representing the petitioners approached the Government with regard to their difficulties in the matter. Government thereafter issued an exemption notification. However, the respondent a...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Coffee Curing Works Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commerci ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-2003
Reported in: [2003]132STC327(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Mysore Coffee Curing Works Ltd., is seeking to strike down Section 6-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 as unconstitutional. Petitioner also wants a writ of certiorari to quash that portion of the assessment dated June 22, 1999 at annexure F for the year ended March 31, 1998 levying turnover tax at 3 per cent up to July 2, 1997 and also to quash an endorsement dated December 9, 1999, annexure H, issued by respondent No. 1 refusing to rectify such order. Petitioner is also seeking other reliefs.2. Facts in brief are as under : Petitioner is a dealer in terms of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short). Petitioner exports substantial quantities of coffee seeds after curing them. Section 6-B of the Act provides for liability to pay tax known as 'turnover tax' on his total turnover at the rate/s that may be specified or notified from time to time. With effect from April 1, 1997 up to June 30, 1997 a slab system for payment of turnover tax was noti...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Rama Rao Vs. Smt. Indira Deenadayalu Naidu and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2218; 2003(5)KarLJ532
Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This revision petition filed under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is directed against the order dated 17.4.2002 passed in Execution No. 10098/1999 by the XV Additional Small Cause Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore (SCCH No. 19). The decree holder in the execution case has come up in revision complaining that the Executing Court is in error in dismissing the execution case on the premise that nothing was required to be executed in respect of the order that was sought to be executed, that the Executing Court has not appreciated the facts and circumstances under which the earlier orders had come to be passed, that though the material on record did indicate that the decree holder had in fact been put in possession of the portion of the property in dispute it was factually not so, that the decree holder who was a tenant and who had been made to yield possession to the landlord on the assurance that he will be put back in possession subsequent to the demolition...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumanthappa and ors. Vs. M. Adisheshaiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2441
Sabhahit, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Madhugiri, in R.A.No. 51/1984 dated 22.2.1988 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Munsiff, Pavagada, in O.S.No. 111/1980 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. 111/1980 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 his widow Gangamma...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Raju Vs. Annaiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant497
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree passed by the District Judge, Mandya in R. A. No. 50/94 arising out of the Judgment and Decree passed in O. S. No. 114/91 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge, Mandya. The appellant is the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit came to be dismissed and the consequent appeal is also dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present second appeal is filed.2. According to the plaintiff's contention, he constituted a joint family along with the defendants 1 to 3. The joint family owned around 7 acres of wet land. The first defendant is the father. The second defendant is his mother and the third defendant is the elder brother. It is said that the father and elder brother of the plaintiff found that the property could be conveniently managed by the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Mehafoz Alam Dastagirsab Killedar Vs. Shagufta
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant373; I(2004)DMC76; ILR2003KAR2096; 2003(4)KarLJ365
Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act by a Mohammedan husband complaining against the correctness and validity of the judgment and decree dated 16.8.2001 passed by the Family Court at Belgaum in O.S. No. 24/00 whereby the Family Court has decreed the suit of the respondent/wife and granted a decree of divorce in favour of the wife by dissolving the marriage between the parties and decreed the suit which had been filed invoking the provisions of Sub-section (ii) of Section 2 of Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939.2. The husband being aggrieved by this judgment and decree of the Family Court dissolving his marriage with the respondent/wife is in appeal before us. 3. Sri V.V. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that an interesting question of law governing the interpretation of Sub-section (ii) of Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') arises in this appeal an...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Patel Vs. R.K. Synthetics and Fibres Private Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC569; 2003CriLJ3218; ILR2003KAR2937
ORDERSreedhar Rao, J.1. Both the petitions are considered together as they involve similar question of law and facts.2. The petitioner is common in both the cases.He is convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act in C.C.No. 32920/2000 and 32720/2000 on the file of the 15th A.C.M.M., Bangalore.He has been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 3,28,000/- and Rs. 2,40,000/- respectively in both the cases. Out of the said fine amount, the Trial Court has granted a compensation of Rs. 3,24,000/- in both cases. The balance of amount is directed to be deposited towards the prosecution expenses. In the appeal, the Sessions Judge has conditionally stayed the sentence directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the fine amount in each case. Aggrieved by the said direction, the present petitions are filed.3. It is the contention of the petitioner that in view of the provision of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 389 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 357 of Cr.P.C....
Tag this Judgment!Veerabhadrappa and anr. Vs. Smt. Gangamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant348; 2004(3)KarLJ13
Rajendra Prasad, J. 1. Both these Regular First Appeals arise out of the common judgment. The parties and the subject-matter involved in both the appeals are common. Common arguments have been advanced by both sides. Hence, common judgment. 2. We have heard the arguments of both sides. In view of the grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeals, the following points would arise for consideration : (i) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court impugned under these appeals is legal and valid (ii) Whether there is any need for this Court to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court (iii) What judgment or decree 3. The parties, in the course of this judgment, are referred with respect to their ranking in the trial Court, for the purpose of convenience. 4. Smt. Nalini Venkatesh, learned counsel for plaintiffs, strenuously contended that the material on record clearly goes to show that the judgment and decree of the trial Court impugned in R. F. A. No. 435/1991 is illegal and i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »