Karnataka Court July 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.
Vasavadatta Cements Vs. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, by Its Chairman ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3091; [2004]138STC276(Kar)
ORDERRamesh, J.1. The petitioner in these revision petitions is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, carrying on business in the manufacture of cement and is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act,1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. In these revision Petitions presented under Section 23(1) of the Act, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the judgment dated 30th November 1995 made in STA Nos. 529 to 534 of 1995 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Tribunal').3.The only question of law that was urged and that falls for determination in this revision Petition is as to whether on the admitted facts, the petitioner is entitled for the concessional rate of tax as provided under Section 5A of the Act, on its turnover of purchases of Bauxitee Ore during the assessment years 1987-88, 1989-90 to 1993-94.4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for th...
Smt. A.S. Suchitra Vs. K. Rathnakara Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)KarLJ379
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition filed by her for eviction of the tenant under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short), the petitioner-landlord has preferred this revision under Section 50 of the repealed Act. 2. The facts as pleaded by the petitioner in support of her case for eviction of the tenant, briefly stated, are: The petitioner is the owner of the petition premises which is rented out to the respondent-tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 3,250A. She along with her husband are residents of Thippanahalli Estate, Chickmagalur. Her husband is one of the Directors of Ankush Builders Private Limited and office is situated at No. 15, Siddiah Road, Bangalore. The said company is engaged in the business of constructions and he being the promoter of the company is often required to be present at Bangalore. The wet weather in Chickmagalur does not suit her and she is suffering from bronchitis and ofte...
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Smt. R. Mahesh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC434; ILR2003KAR3562
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. A Division Bench of this Court, while considering these appeals vide order dated 6.1.2003, found that the Division Bench decision of this Court in SRI BALASHYAM SINGH v. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, W.A. NO. 4163/2002 DD. ON 19-8-02 has expressed a view contrary to the decision in KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. STATE TRASPORT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, and that if was appropriate that the matter be considered by the Full Bench to decide the following question:'Whether it is permissible to grant variation of the conditions of a stage carriage permit held by a saved operator under the Kolar Pocket Scheme/Bellary Pocket Scheme, by increasing the number of trips or number of vehicles?'Accordingly, the Division Bench directed the Registry to place the matters before the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench.2. Thus, as per the order dated 2.7,2003 the matter has come up before this Bench.3. The necessary facts for the disposal of this referenc...
A.S. Mani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Kar)511
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. Sri A.S. Mani, an expert in marketing in the petroleum sector is knocking the doors of this Court in the light of an adverse endorsement issued by the Ministry of Finance dt. 2nd June, 1999.2. The admitted facts are as under:M/s Oiltanking, a foreign company entered into an agreement with the petitioner in the matter of providing consultancy services. There are various clauses seen in the agreement. An application was made to the Government in the matter of approval of the agreement. The agreement was approved subject to a condition. The conditional approval reads as under: 'The approval for exemption is limited proportionally to the stay and work abroad with the total amount received by applicant.' 3. On receipt of the same, the petitioner sought for reconsideration. In the absence of any positive response, the petitioner is knocking the doors of this Court for justice.4. Respondents have entered appearance. They oppose the prayers.5. Writ Petition Nos. 23605 ...
Aralikotrappa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary and Co ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3906; 2004(2)KarLJ147
ORDERShylendra Kumar, J. 1. Petitioners are all agriculturists who make use of water, supplied by the Tungabadra Canal for which petitioners were to pay water rates at the rate of Rs.150/- per acre in respect of sugarcane Crop. This rate had been fixed as per Rates 3 of the Karnataka Irrigation (Levy of Water Rates) Rules, 1965 (referred to as Rules hereinafter) as amended from time to time and as per the said Rule in force with effect from 24-11-1987. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that while they were paying water rates as per this rate i.e. Rs. 150/- per acre which is not dispute and that they have been asked to pay water rates at Rs. 400/- per acre in respect of sugarcane as per the Government Order dated 13.7.2000, under which it is proposed to levy and collect water rate @ Rs. 400/- per acre in respect of sugarcane. 3. The submission of Sri Srikante Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the levy of water rate in respect of irrigation is as provided u...
Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. R. Maheshwari and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant456
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. A Division Bench of this Court, while considering these appeals vide order dated 6-1-2003, found that the Division Bench decision of this Court in Sri Balashyarn Singh v. Karnataka State Road Transport Authority, (W.A. No. 4163/2002 decided on 19-8-2002) has expressed a view contrary to the decision in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. State Transport Appellate Authority, : AIR1987SC711 and that it was appropriate that the matter be considered by the Full Bench to decide the following question :'Whether it is permissible to grant variation of the conditions of a stage carriage permit held by a saved operator under the Kolar Packet Scheme/Bellary Pocket Scheme, by increasing the number of trips or number of vehicles ?'Accordingly, the Division Bench directed the Registry to place the matters before the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench.2. Thus, as per the order dated 2-7-2003 the matter has come up before this Bench.3. The necessary facts for th...
Subhash Projects and Marketing Limited Vs. JaIn Farms and Resorts Ltd. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4343
ORDERAbdul Nazeer, J.1. This revision has been filed by the first defendant challenging the order dated 30.11.2001 passed by the XXX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, on I.A.No. IV in O.S. No. 1234/1998.2. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the second defendant in the said suit. The plaintiff has filed the said suit for recovery of Rs. 42,30,000/- with a further relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the wind-mills. After filing of the said suit, the first defendant has filed I.A.No. IV under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with a request to stay all further proceedings in the suit and refer the parties to Arbitration in view of the arbitration Clause contained in the Agreement dated 1.8.1995, The Plaintiff has opposed the said application. The Trial Court by the order impugned in this case has rejected the said application. The grounds urged in the affidavit supporting I...
M. Ramachandra Reddy Vs. H. Puttaswamy and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: [2005]126CompCas801(Kar); ILR2003KAR4193; 2004(1)KarLJ487; [2004]50SCL372(Kar)
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. This O.S.A. is filed against the order of the learned Company Judge, dated 3.6.2002, passed in Company Application No. 563/ 2001 arising out of Co. A. 1289/2000 in Company Petition No. 8/ 1974.2. It is stated that the appellant - respondent was designated as Official Liquidator attached to the High Court. Pending Company petitions, the matter was transferred vide order dated 11.4.2000 passed in C.A. 1289/2000 in Co. P. 8/1974 and respondent No. 1 became the Official Liquidator under Section 448(1)(b) of the Companies Act to work as Official Receiver in Civil Courts and to take possession of the records. The grievance of the learned Counsel for the Applicant - Respondent is that despite expiry of the term and the appointment of M. Ramachandra Reddy as Official Receiver of Bangalore District, still the learned Single Judge has extended H. Puttaswamy's term invoking Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules ( in short the Rules) to continue with the work entrusted to him vide or...
Southern Wonder World Resorts Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: [2003]48SCL580(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. First petitioner claims to be a company carrying on activities such as acquiring properties, developing them and selling them to interested persons. It also carries on the activity of developing resorts on the basis of what is known as 'time-share' and the resort is sold to its members on receiving lamp sum amounts and providing accommodation to such members of a limited duration as per the scheme evolved by the company. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, law enforcing agency, have resorted to criminal action against the petitioner on the premise that their activity attracts the provisions of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 ('the Act' for short) and as such the petitioner carrying on business in such trade attracting the provisions of the Act even without a proper registration is required to be prevented from carrying on such activity. 3. In this regard the second petitioner had also been arrested...
Mittal Steels Ltd. and anr. Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC497; [2004]118CompCas661(Kar); [2004]56SCL92(Kar)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The first petitioner is a limited company owning a factory manufacturing steel and the second petitioner is the managing director of the first petitioner-company. The writ petition is presented complaining about the orders passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, the second respondent and confirmed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in respect of the reference made by the petitioner-company under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The petitioners complain that the proposal placed before the Board in the form of reference by the board of directors of the first petitioner-company has not received due consideration at the hands of the Board and their appeal to the 1st Appellate Authority also met with the same fate and as such the petitioners are before this court seeking for quashing of these orders as also for quashing the show-cause notice dated February 2, 20...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »