Karnataka Court August 2003 Judgments
Abdul Khader Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-2003
Reported in: 2004(92)ECC252; 2003LC137(Karnataka); 2003(157)ELT517(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioners are before me challenging an order bearing Nos. 2633 and 2704/96, dated 30-12-1996 [1999 (109) E.L.T. 174 (Tribunal)] vide Annexure-C enhancing the penalty levied by an order dated 10-12-1993 vide Annexure-A and rejection of reference by Order Nos. 48 and 49/99, dated 6-8-99 vide Annexure-D by the Tribunal.2. Petitioners state in these petitions that Officers of respondent No. 2 acting on credible information that a truck bearing Registration No. KA-25-1254 carrying contraband silver bricks would be going towards Indore after passing through Karkala had started checking all the lorries passing on that route. A truck with brick coloured front cabin was seen coming from Padubidri side and moving towards Karkala. The Officers stopped the vehicle and the vehicle was brought to DRI Office, Mangalore. The vehicle was searched and the officers recovered 75 white metallic bricks weighing 2676.394 kgs and valued at Rs. 2,14,11,152/-. The silver bricks were se...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramakrishna and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)KarLJ417
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J. 1. These writ appeals are filed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. Nos. 23803 to 29809 of 2002 (GM), dated 28-11-2002.2. It is stated that the appellants-petitioners 1 and 2 were appointed as Trustees of Sri Someswara Swamy Temple, Ulsoor, Bangalore, for a period of three years vide order dated 25-8-2001 (Annexure-A). One C. Narayanappa filed Writ Petition No. 31827 of 2001 as his nomination had been rejected, and got an interim order. However, on 7-3-2002 the writ petition was dismissed vide Annexure-B as having become infructuous as the three years period of appointment of petitioner-Narayanappa with effect from 12-2-1999 had come to an end. Thereafter the 2nd respondent issued an order (Annexure-C) on 8-3-2002 directing the concerned officer to implement the order dated 25-8-2001. But, the same could not be given effect to on account of the order dated 30-4-2002 (Annexure-D) passed by 2nd respondent stating that the order dated 25-8-200...
Tag this Judgment!Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (App ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC317(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioner is complaining in this petition with regard to consideration of the stay petition by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The petitioner suffered an adverse assessment order in the year 2000-2001. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an appeal in appeal together with an application for stay before the first respondent. The first respondent disposed of the same in terms of annexure B. The Joint Commissioner has directed the petitioner to deposit 50 per cent of the disputed tax in cash and provide security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority for the remaining amount. This order is challenged by the petitioner.2. At my instance Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for final disposal with their consent.3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri B.L. Acharya, would say that this Court has consistently ruled that application of mind is necessary in the matter of co...
Tag this Judgment!Khaza Munsoor Ahmed Khan and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Secre ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4026; 2003(6)KarLJ145
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J .1. In all these Writ Petitions the petitioners have sought for a declaration that Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') are repugnant to the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and therefore they are ab initio void, nonest and unenforceable and have also sought for quashing of the notifications issued under Section 17(1) and 19(1)(a) of the above said Act. 2. The petitioners claiming to be the owners of certain land shave filed these Writ Petitions challenging the notifications referred to above. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions submit that Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Act, are liable to be struck down as they are repugnant to the provisions of the L.A. Act, on the ground that no opportunity of hearing as provided under Section 5-A of the L.A., Act has been provided, under this Act. Under the provisions of the L.A. Act, if any land owner objects acquisi...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Damawwa Vs. the Chairman, Land Tribunal and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)KarLJ233
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. This land reforms revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 121-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, aggrieved by the order dated 27-9-1989 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bijapur on I.A. No. II in L.R.A. No. 227 of 1988.2. The short question arising in this revision is whether the amendment sought by the respondent could have been allowed by the Appellate Authority as has been done by it under the impugned order.3. The respondent-Girimallappa Nandabasappa Hadapad filed the application before the Appellate Tribunal for amendment of Form 7 originally filed by him before the Land Tribunal. The said application came to be allowed. Being aggrieved the petitioner-owner has come up in this revision.4. I have heard the learned Counsel Mr. Ashok R. Kalyan Shetty for the petitioner.5. The legal representatives of Girimallappa Nandabasappa Hadapad though served have not chosen to appear and defend their cause in this revision. On 1...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Khathijabi Vs. St. Joseph's Church, Rep. by Its Parish Priest
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4506
ORDERBannurmath, J.1. Though this revision petition is posted for admission, as both the sides are represented by Counsel and at their request matter is taken up for final disposal.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present proceedings are as follows:The respondent herein-St.Joseph's Church, Bajpe, represented by Parish Priest had filed ejectment suit O.S.No. 1019/93 against its tenant Sri S.K.Ismaii whose wife is the present petitioner. It is not in dispute that such ejectment suit was filed after issuing notice of termination as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It appears, during the pendency of the suit, the tenant expired and to bring his L.R. on record, an application was filed. However, as the original tenant himself had raised question regarding maintainability of the suit, the same was considered by the trial Court and on finding that the suit is not maintainable, permitted the landlord-respondent herein to withdraw the plaint. After such order, th...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Khathijabi Vs. St. Joseph's Church
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)KarLJ229
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Though this revision petition is posted for admission, as both the sides are represented by Counsel and at their request matter is taken up for final disposal.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present proceedings are as follows:The respondent herein-St. Joseph's Church, Bajpe, represented by Parish Priest had filed ejectment suit (O.S. No. 1019 of 1993) against its tenant Sri S.K. Ismail whose wife is the present petitioner. It is not in dispute that such ejectment suit was filed after issuing notice of termination as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It appears, during the pendency of the suit, the tenant expired and to bring his legal representative on record, an application was filed. However, as the original tenant himself had raised question regarding maintainability of the suit, the same was considered by the Trial Court and on finding that the suit is not maintainable, permitted the landlord, respondent herein, to withdraw...
Tag this Judgment!A.J. Shetty and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4544; [2006]143STC255(Kar)
ORDERGururajan, J. 1. Petitioner M/s. A.J. Shetty and Co., (P) Ltd., a dealer, is challenging Annexure-C, an endorsement dated 21.5.2001. Petitioner also seeks a direction with regard to extension of benefits in terms of the Circular dated 9.4.1999 (Annexure-A).2. Petitioner is a dealer in terms of Sales Tax Laws. There was some delay in payment of tax for the assessment years 1984-85, 1986-87, 1993-94 and 1995-96. According to the petitioner, except a sum of Rs. 40,000.00 for the year 1986-87, he has fully paid the tax for the remaining three years.3. Respondent - 1 issued Annexure -A, a proceedings of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in the matter of waiver of penalty and interest on tax relating to the assessment years upto 1996-97 One Time Relief. Annexure-A had been issued in the light of the Budget Speech for the year 1999-2000 made by the Deputy Chief Minister and Minister for Finance and Planning. Petitioner made an application in terms of Annexure-B in the light of the No...
Tag this Judgment!The Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner Vs. Fredrick N ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ388
S.R. Nayak, J.1. M.F.A. No. 622 of 2000 is filed by the acquiring authority, whereas M.F.A. No. 462 of 2000 is filed by the beneficiary. Both these appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 30th October, 1999 in L.A.C. No. 52 of 1987 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore (for short, 'the Civil Court'). By the impugned award, the Civil Court has determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:The State in exercise of its eminent domain power, acquired 2 acres84 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 549/A of Attavar Village, Mangalore for a public purpose, to wit, for construction of a building complexfor the Geological Survey of India to house its offices by issuing Section4(1) notification dated 16-6-1983 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). The Land Acquisition Of...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Munaf Choudhari Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Secretary, H ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4757; ILR2003KAR4087
ORDERShylendra Kumar, J. 1. Petitioner is the father of one Zakir Hussain, who it is reported, died on 15.6.2002 while undergoing treatment at the Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology at Bangalore, to which place he had been taken for treatment by the respondents and was a person who was in judicial custody on being so remanded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class III Court, Hubli. 2. Petitioner is complaining that his son who was in the pink of his health and prime of his youth at 22 years, has been virtually done to death by the inhuman treatment meted out to him while he was in custody and that the respondents have sought to pass it off as an incident of natural death of his son due to a massive heart attack while he was at hospital. 3. The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent 1 to 3 State of Karnataka, The Director General and Inspector General of Police in Karnataka and Commissioner of Police, Hubli, Dharwad District respectively, to inquir...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »