Karnataka Court September 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.
S. Raghuram Reddy Vs. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3834; [2003]134STC598(Kar)
Vishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. The petitioner in these petitions is a Contractor and a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, (hereinafter referred as 'the Act').2. The brief facts which are not in serious dispute may be stated as hereunder.The Assessing Officer in the orders of assessment dated 1st January 2000 found that the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax in respect of the work carried out by him for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1992-93 for asphalting of roads under item 6 (Sl No.6) given to the Sixth Schedule of the Act. He took the view that asphalting of the roads done by the petitioner amounts to construction of roads. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) dismissed the appeal Nos. KST.AP. 422 to 433 of 1999 by his Order dated 6th April 2000, filed by the petitioner, thereby confirming the orders of assessment. The second appeal filed by the petitioner against the said orders in STA Nos. 736 to 747 of 2000 before the Tribunal ca...
Smt. Khamarunnisa Vs. Mudalappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4535
Srinivasa Reddy, J. 1. In this second appeal the appellant-plaintiff challenges the judgment and decree dated 17-8-1995 passed in R.A.No. 1/95 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1994 passed in O.S.No. 122/91 dismissing the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale.2. Reference is made to the parties to this appeal by their rank and status in the suit.3. The plaintiff filed the suit on the following averments:The defendant as manager of his family entered into the suit agreement to sell two lands for a legal necessity of his family. The consideration of Rs. 30,000/- was paid in full. The defendant had agreed to execute a registered deed after removal of the then existing ban on registration of fragments. The plaintiff is ready and willing to perform her part of the contract but the defendant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract despite causing issue of a legal notice demanding the de...
R. Sethurajan Vs. N.S. Krishna Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1275; 2005(3)KarLJ430
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J 1. This revision petition under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999 ('the Act' for short) is preferred against the order dated 22-2-2003 passed by the Court-below in H.R.C 1991/97 allowing the petition filed for eviction under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act. 2. The respondent-landlord filed the petition under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short) for eviction on the ground that the ground floor portion of the premises in his occupation consisting of three bed rooms is not sufficient for him to accommodate his two married sons, their wives and children and one unmarried son. It was also pleaded by him that his married daughter also often visit his house and he is finding it difficult to accommodate them during their visits. It was further pleaded by the landlord that his unmarried son Manoj Kumar has reached the marriageable age and for want of accommodation he is not in a position to conduct his marria...
Uday L. Pehekar Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant93; 2004(2)KarLJ231; [2004]53SCL67(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. Petitioner, a borrower from the first respondent- Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. (the Corporation' for short) has approached this Court praying for quashing of a sale deed dated 10-8-2002 executed in favour of the third respondent by the first respondent Corporation pursuant to the properties to the assets of the petitioner having been sold in the proceedings for recovery of the amounts due by the petitioner and in favour of the respondent Corporation. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the Corporation to consider the proposal of the petitioner for a 'One-time settlement' and other incidental reliefs.2. As per the petition averments, petitioner, who had started a small scale industrial unit in the name and style as M/s. Indu Ice and Cold Storage at Bijapur, had been given financial assistance to the extent of Rs. 12.58 lakhs by the first respondent Corporation starting from the year 1987 up to 1994....
Dinesh Suvarna Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1094; 2004(2)KarLJ308
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 15-3-2003 passed by the 2nd respondent in No. AR:38: SAMANYA:CR 54/02-03 (Annexure-E).2. The only grievance of the petitioner as made out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that, when the matter had come up for orders before the 2nd respondent on 15-3-2003, the petitioner has filed an application requesting one more week's time to produce the documents to substantiate his case and also to produce the overdraft renewal order passed by the authorities. But, his request was refused by the 2nd respondent on the ground that along with the application he has not produced any documents. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the Manager of the Bank had appeared before the 2nd respondent, gave evidence and sought for ten days time to produce the order passed by the Competent Authority renewing the overdraft fac...
Bhimashankar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KarLJ25
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate and the learned State Public Prosecutor in this group of eleven petitions. The petitioner has filed these eleven interlocutory applications pointing out that he has undergone the sentence of one year that was awarded by the Court, that he is still in custody and that the Jailor is not releasing him on the ground that the earlier order did not specify that the sentences awarded in the eleven cases were to run concurrently. The view taken by the authorities is that in the absence of an order for concurrence, that each sentence will have to be served individually which means that the accused would have to remain in custody until the last of the sentences has been served. The contention raised before me is that this was an obvious error and that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, that the concurrency aspect ought to have been pointed out to the Courts at the time of decision which was overlooked ...
G.M. Kunte Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, by It ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3851
ORDERDattu, J. 1. Petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation retired from the services of the respondent - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited ('Corporation' for short) on 31.5.1999. Since the respondent Corporation did not immediately settle the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner, he was making repeated representations and since those representations did not yield any results, petitioner was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 22.5.2000. Since he did not get any reply even to the said notice and since the respondent Corporation had not settled the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner, he was approached this Court inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent Corporation to pay him the full pension and pensionary benefits with 18% interest from the date it became payable till the actual date of payment. 2. With the permission of the Court, petitioner has amended the prayer portion of the Writ Petition, by questioning the correctness or ot...
Vikrant Tyres Limited Vs. Nil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3885
ORDERKumar, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for sanction of the scheme of arrangement and amalgamation between J.K. Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as Transferee Company) and its share holders and J.K. Agri Genetics Limited (hereinafter referred to as JKAL) and its shareholders and J.K. Sugar Limited (hereinafter referred to as JKSL) and its shareholders and Vikrant Tyres Limited, the petitioner herein, and its creditors and its shareholders. 2. The petitioner is a public company limited by shares under the Companies Act of 1956, on October 3, 1973 having its registered office at Vikrant House, No. 54, First Main Road, V.V. Mohalla, Mysore, Karnataka. The main object of the petitioner is to manufacture, construct, produce, prepare, vulcanize, retread, repair, develop, improve, sell, export, import and generally deal in tyres and tubes of every description for all types of vehicles and other business as mentioned in the memorandum of association. The authorized...
In Re: Vikrant Tyres Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: [2005]126CompCas288(Kar); [2003]47SCL613(Kar)
N. Kumar, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for sanction of the scheme of arrangement and amalgamation between J.K. Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as Transferee-Company) and its shareholders and J.K. Agri-Genetics Limited (hereinafter referred to as JKAL) and its shareholders and J.K. Sugar Limited (hereinafter referred to as JKSL) and its shareholders and Vikrant Tyres Limited, the petitioner herein, and its creditors and its shareholders.2. The petitioner is a public company limited by shares under the Companies Act of 1956, on October 3, 1973 having its registered office at Vikrant House, No. 54, First Main Road, V.V. Mohalla, Mysore, Karnataka. The main object of the petitioner is to manufacture, construct, produce, prepare, vulcanize, retread, repair, develop, improve, sell, export, import and generally deal in tyres and tubes of every description for all types of vehicles and other business as mentioned in the memorandum of association. The authorised sha...
C.G. Amanulla Khan and ors. Vs. Anwar Khan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant22; 2004(1)KarLJ142
V.G. Sabhahit, J. 1. This appeal by defendants in O.S. No. 92 of 1993 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chickmagalur, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11-6-1998.2. The essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of parties before the Trial Court are as follows.--The plaintiff filed the suit, O.S. No. 92 of 1993 on 26-8-1993 for partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and to deliver his 2/11th share in the schedule properties and for a direction to enquire into mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of realization. The suit schedule property comprises of 2 house properties situate in Chickmagalur. It is averred in the plaint that: the plaintiff and defendants are the children of Gulame Ghouse Khan (hereinafter referred to as 'G.G. Khan'), who was working as a driver; he died on 27-9-1964 at Chickmagalur; G.G. Khan had married Smt. Khuthejabi of Kapu in South Canara District and out of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »