Karnataka Court January 2004 Judgments
Associated Duplicator Co. P. Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Karnataka Elect ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: [2004]120CompCas351(Kar); ILR2004KAR1517; 2004(7)KarLJ29; [2004]52SCL325(Kar)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar J.1. The official liquidator in-charge of the winding up proceedings of M/s. Associated Duplicator Company (P.) Ltd., which was ordered to be wound up as per an order passed by this court on July 13, 1995, has filed the application under Section 446(2)(b) of the Act, read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, praying for ordering the respondent, M/s. Karnataka Electricity Board, to pay a sum of Rs. 12,894 with further interest on the amount of Rs. 10,530 at 6 per cent, from the date of. application till judgment and realisation, etc.2. In the application, it is mentioned that a sum of Rs, 10,530 had been deposited by the company under liquidation with the respondent and this was the amount which was in deposit with the respondent as on July 13, 1995, when the company was ordered to be wound up and the official liquidator was put in charge of the winding up proceedings. A sum of Rs. 2,334 is claimed as interest up to after the date of application and fur...
Tag this Judgment!K. Satish Kumar Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC292; [2004]52SCL52(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. C.A. 1043/02 filed in Company Petition No. 68/97 is by a person who had offered to buy the assets of the company under litigation and which had been advertised for sale as per a paper publication carried in Times of India, News Daily of Bangalore Edition on 28-3-2002. The applicant who had responded to this and who had offered the highest bid amount of Rs. 365 lakhs had, subsequent to certain negotiations etc., increased this offer to Rs. 375 lakhs. The sale itself was being conducted pursuant to the permission granted by this Court on 11-3-2002 permitting the Official Liquidator to sell the properties of the Company namely M/s. Swede (India) Teltronics Limited, which had been ordered to be wound up by this Court by an order passed on 27-1-2000.2. The paper publication reads as under :--'Office of the Official Liquidator.--Attached to High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.Notice of Public Auction.--The movable and immovable assets belongs to M/s. Swede (Ind...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Srinivas Vs. V. Ramkumar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ372
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession upon redemption of a mortgage. The short but interesting question that arises for consideration is whether the tenancy rights held by the Mortgagee who was occupying the mortgaged property as a tenant would extinguish on the principle of merger upon creation of the mortgage and if they did not whether the tenant-mortgage had surrendered the tenancy rights so that the Mortgagor was entitled to claim possession of the mortgaged property upon redemption. The question arises in the following backdrop:The suit property which happens to be a single storeyed shop situate within the City Municipal Corporation limits of Bangalore was in the occupation of M/s. K.R. Suryanarayana Setty and Sons, a partnership firm as a lessee on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 225/- only. The property was owned by M/s. Venkatachalaiah and Sons, another partnership concern who mortgaged the same with the lessee in terms of a mo...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Sadeppa Nandennavar Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its State P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC193; ILR2004KAR1459; 2004(4)KarLJ23
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Heard Sri Ashok R. Kalyanashetty - learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramakrishna - the learned HCGP.2. This revision Petition is filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 31.08.96 passed by the learned JMFC., Bailhongal in Criminal Case No. 274/94 affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Crl.A.No. 100/96 dated 10th July 2002.3. The brief facts of the cases are as follow:According to the prosecution, the complainant who was the driver of non-stop Bus from Belgaum to Bailhongal bearing Registration No. KA-25/F-153 left Belgaum at about 10.00 a.m. on 6.5.93 and was proceeding towards Bailhongal. According to the prosecution, at about 12.00 p.m. when the bus had crossed the Sampgaon Village was in the process of travelling and was at a distance of half a kilometer towards Bailhongal, a truck came from the opposite side in a wrong way. When the complainant was in the process of taking his Bus to the left side, the accused who was the dr...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Rajashekhar Vs. Smt. M.V. Rajamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2302
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This is the plaintiff's revision, being aggrieved of the Order passed in O.S.NO. 292/1995 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM., Mysore, dated 10.6.2003, staying further proceedings of the suit pending disposal of O.S.No. 13/2000, pending before the High Court of Madras.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The plaintiff-M.V. Rajashekhar filed O.S. No. 292/1995 against defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and others for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties described in Schedule 'A,B,C,D and E, situated at Mysore and Madras. The plaintiff's father late M.C. Veerappa had two wives viz., Smt. M.V. Rajamma and Smt. Meenakshamma. Defendant No. 1 - Smt. M.V. Rajamma had no issues. Plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 6 are the children of Smt. Meenakshamma through late M.C. Veerappa. After the death of Sri M.C. Veerappa, present suit O.S.No. 292/1995 was filed on 21.9.1995 for partition and separate possession of their respec...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Rajashekhar Vs. Smt. M.V. Rajamma (Deceased by L. Rs.) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant280; 2004(5)KarLJ269
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This is the plaintiff's revision, being aggrieved of the Order passed in O. S. No. 292/1995 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM,, Mysore, dated 10-6-2003, staying further proceedings of the suit pending disposal of O. S. No. 13/2000, pending before the High Court of Madras.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :The plaintiff M. V. Rajashekhar filed O. S. No. 292/1995 against defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and others for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties described in Schedule 'A, B, C, D and E, situated at Mysore and Madras. The plaintiff's father late M. C. Veerappa had two wives viz., Smt. M. V. Rajamma and Smt. Meenakshamma. Defendant No. 1 Smt. M. V. Rajamma had no issues. Plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 6 are the children of Smt. Meenakshamma through late M. C. Veerappa. After the death of Sri M. C. Veerappa, present suit O. S. No. 292/1995 was filed on 21-9-1995 for partition and separate possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Voltas Limited by Its Deputy General Manager Vs. State of Karnataka, R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR279; (2008)11VST267(Karn)
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the assessee under Section 15-A of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979. The assessment year is 1992-93.2. Brief facts which are germane for disposal of the revision petition can be stated as under;The Petitioner is a limited company manufacturing, among others, air-conditioners and refrigerators in various States in India and the countrywide marketing network with branches including one at Bangalore. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short CST Act), Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short KST Act) and Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (for short KTEG Act). The petitioner's branch at Bangalore is engaged in selling its manufactured goods. For the assessment year 1992-93, the petitioner filed its return under the KTEG Act declaring the value of goods arrived at by taking the amount shown in the stock transfer invoice issued by the manufacturing unit which represe...
Tag this Judgment!Bpl Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST835(Karn)
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. The petitioner, a manufacturer of electronic goods, is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979, (for short, 'the KTEG Act').For the assessment year 1996-97 (April 1, 1996 to March 31, 1997), the petitioner filed a return on May 30, 1997, subsequently revised on February 29, 2000, returning a taxable turnover of Rs. 2,27,84,17,826. The assessing authority (second respondent) issued a proposition notice dated March 2, 2000 proposing a taxable turnover of Rs. 4,62,03,58,237. The petitioner filed objections dated March 28, 2000. One of the objections related to the valuation of goods for the purpose of levy of entry tax under the Act. The assessing authority passed an order of assessment dated March 31, 2000 determining the taxable turnover as Rs. 3,78,24,78,447 and entry tax payable as Rs. 4,42,01,754.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the valuation of the goods adopted for the purpose of levy of entry tax under the Act. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Channamma and ors. Vs. Shantkumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant266; ILR2004KAR1052; 2004(2)KarLJ227
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1 This is the defendants revision being aggrieved of the order passed in O.S. No. 34 of 1999 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga, dated 23-6-2003 permitting the plaintiff to mark the certified copy of the map,2. The brief facts are as follows.--The suit of the plaintiff is for declaration and consequential reliefs. After completion of the pleadings and framing of issues, the case was posted for evidence. While the plaintiff was in the witness-box, produced a certified copy of map issued by the Corporation pertaining to the suit scheduleproperty. The marking of the certified copy of the map was objected by the defendants on the ground that the map is an 'instrument' coming within the meaning of Section 2(1) (j) and (k) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') and that the document was to be impounded. Therefore, the plaintiff has to pay duty and penalty. After hearing the learned Counsels for the plaintiff and defendants, the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(93)ECC477; 2004(165)ELT508(Kar)
ORDER1. Respondent is a registered Small Scale unit manufacturing rigid PVC pipes and fittings under Chapter Heading 3917 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Small Scale Industrial Units whose turnover is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, are not required to register themselves under the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('Act' for short) nor liable to pay Central Excise Duty. The Central Excise Officers visited the unit of the respondent on 5-2-1999 and found that as on that day, respondent's unit had cleared goods of the value of Rs. 65,09,461/-. Hence, a show cause notice was issued calling upon the respondent to show cause why (1) duty of Rs. 75,474/- on the value of clearances made in excess of the exemption limit of Rs. 50 lakhs should not be demanded; (2) why interest at 20% should not be demanded on the duty due up to the date of payment of duty; (3) why penalty under Section 11AC of the Act equal to the duty amount proposed to be demanded and recovered should not be imposed; (4) why penalty ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »