Karnataka Court January 2004 Judgments
G. Govindappa by His Lrs. Vs. Tayamma by Her Lrs.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2583; 2004(7)KarLJ25
Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. This appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.9.99 in RA No. 17/85 on the file of the Addl. District Judge, Raichur, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 31.8.85 in O.S.No. 171/81 on the file of the Civil Judge, Raichur. For convenient discussion the appellant would be called plaintiffs and the respondents as defendants. 2. The appellants are the LRs of the deceased plaintiff, who filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property and for possession. According to plaintiff his grand father one Narasappa is the propositus. The suit properties are ancestral properties. Propositus died leaving behind two sons by name Basanna and Balayya. Plaintiff is the son of Basanna. The first defendant is the wife of Balayya and the second defendant is the daughter of Balayya. Basanna died in the year 1975. Balayya died in the year 1976. Plaintiff contends that in the year 1939 as per Ex P1 Balayya released his share in the suit property i...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Cloth Stores and anr. Vs. Smt. Narangi Bai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)KarLJ99
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioners/legal representatives of late Mr. C. Bansilal are challenging the order dated 27-6-1999 passed in HRC No. 4351 of 1980 on the file of Small Causes Court at Bangalore- Parties are referred as per their ranking before Trial Court.2. Respondent-landlord late Kewalchand filed HRC No. 4351 of 1980 seeking for an order of eviction. The matter was contested. After contest, learned Trial Judge ordered eviction and ordered delivery of possession to the landlord. Petitioner filed HRRP No. 1162 of 1997. This Court in terms of an order in Jain Cloth Stores, Bangalore v. M. Kewalchand (deceased) by L.Rs, 2003(2) Kar. L.J. 276 : ILR 2002 Kar. 1694 disposed of the HRRP thereby confirming the order of the learned Trial Judge. This Court granted time to the petitioners subject to an undertaking in terms of the order. Petitioner thereafter challenged the said order in SLP No. 6977 of 2002. SLP stood rejected. According to petition averments in terms of Section 70(2), ...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: [2006]130CompCas699(Kar); [2006]144STC633(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri Radhesh Prabhu, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Niloufer Akbar, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. Petitioner is a nationalised Bank functioning on commercial lines. A person who had borrowed funds from the petitioner-bank and who was also a dealer and an assessee under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, had for the purpose of securing repayment of the amounts borrowed by him from the petitioner-bank had it appears mortgaged one of his property in favour of the petitioner-Bank.3. The borrower of the funds from the petitioner-bank having defaulted in repayment of the amount, petitioner-bank had filed a suit for recovery of the amount and for enforcement of the security. The said suit was decreed and for the satisfaction of the decree the property that had been mortgaged in favour of the petitioner-Bank was sold through court auction. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Appayya Kallappa Khanadale (Deceased) by L.Rs and anr. Vs. State of Ka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1271; 2004(2)KarLJ456
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Settlement not reported. Hence, the Court proceeds to dictate the order on merits of the case.2. The Legal Representatives of deceased petitioner have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order at Annexure-B, dated 17-5-2003 passed by the 2nd respondent Land Tribunal rejecting the application seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of 3.08 acres of land in Sy. No. 26 of Managuthi village and granting occupancy rights in favour of respondents 3(a) to (f) and 4 to 6 to the entire extent of 6-16 acres in the same land.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, prima facie in my view the Land Tribunal committed an error in passing the impugned order granting occupancy rights to the entire extent to respondents 3 to 6 and rejecting the claim of petitioners' father. The reasons for my conclusion are as under.--(i) The petitioner's father filed suit in O.S. No. 29 of 1971 against respondents 3 and 6 seeking p...
Tag this Judgment!M.N. Nilugal Vs. the District Manager, Food Corporation of India and a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1804; [2005]142STC229(Kar)
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J. 1. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('Act' for short), carrying on business, inter alia, in buying and selling damaged foodgrains (wheat and rice) from food corporation of India.2. Food Corporation of India ('FCI' for short)- first respondent herein, periodically issues tender notices for disposal of damaged food grains specifying the purpose for which such damaged foodgrains can be used. The four specified purposes are : (1) fit for cattle/ poultry feed; (2) fit for industrial use as well as for use as manure; (3) fit for use as manure only; and (4) fit for manufacture of inedible starch only. Clause (L) (i) of the general terms and conditions of sale of damaged foodgrains provides thus:'It is absolutely necessary that the buyer of any particular category of stock shall use the same only for the purpose indicated and shall make no attempt whatsoever for adulteration or misuse of the stocks. The Food Corporation of India...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Khader (Deceased) by L.R. Vs. Sri Dandu Mariyamman Temple Trust
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1299; 2004(2)KarLJ322
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant. Respondent-plaintiff is a trust represented by its trustees. Respondent filed O.S. No. 15348 of 1999 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore requesting the Court to direct the defendant to surrender vacant possession of the suit property and to pay damages of Rs. 100A per day from 1-1-1999 till the date of filing the suit amounting to Rs. 7,200/- and also to hold an enquiry in regard to future mesne profits.2. According to the plaint averments, defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the premises No. 25, Venkataswamy Naidu Road, Shivaji Circle, Shivajinagar, Bangalore-51, on a monthly rent of Rs. 211- and that the defendant is irregular in payment of rent and has failed to pay rent from 1-6-1994 to 31-12-1998 amounting to Rs. 1,487/- and restricting the claim for a period of three years has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 648/-. It is further averred that plaintiff had filed an evictio...
Tag this Judgment!Vittal Janardhan Jadhav and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Kar)51
R. Gururajan, J.1. These petitions are filed by Vittal Janardhan Jadhav and two others seeking for various reliefs.2. Facts in brief are as under :Respondent authorities conducted search and seizure under Section 132(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), of the assessees, namely, Vithal Janardhan Jadhav, Vishwas alias Vijay Vasant Deshmukh and Vinayak Vilas Ghodke on 16th June, 1999, at Hubli. Search and seizure action was commenced and concluded on 16th June, 1999. As a result of search and seizure actions, a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs was seized from the said three persons. Notice under Section 158BC of the Act was issued and served on the assessees. Returns of income-tax in Form No. 2B declaring their undisclosed income were filed for the block period from 1st April, 1989 to 16th June, 1999.Petitioners and others claimed the cash seized as belonging to them. They filed writ petitions in this Court in Writ Petn. Nos. 2358 to 2377 of 2000. This Court disposed of the said petitions and di...
Tag this Judgment!Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: [2004]136STC519(Kar)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The appellant in this appeal was the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4971 of 1999 (Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [2000] 117 STC 437) before this Court. The learned single Judge in the impugned order rejected the writ petition.2. Facts in brief, which have led to the filing of this appeal, are as hereunder :The appellant is a public limited company and owns a Tug (Towing vessel) by name 'Kumari Tarini' (hereinafter referred to as 'the tug'). The appellant entered into a charter party agreement with New Mangalore Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the NMPT') on January 8, 1998, wherein it was agreed to make available the services of the said tug for the purposes mentioned in the said agreement along with the master and other personnel of the appellant to the NMPT for a period of six months from the date of commencement of service. A copy of the said agreement was produced as annexure A to the writ petition. The 2nd respondent, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Rosane Jerome D'souza Vs. Bhagvandas Gangaram Kamble by his legal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR705; 2005(4)KarLJ158
ORDER 21 RULE 35 - EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS - Whether the executing Court is justified in withdrawing/recalling the orders in an earlier application in exercise of its inherent powers - HELD - The application for delivery of possession of the property is not maintainable in law and that the Execution Court is not justified in allowing such application since the Decree Holder was already put in possession of the property, according to law. The Decree Holder is not precluded from taking action against the Judgment Debtors or any person in illegal possession of the property either for possession or for any other relief, in accordance with law.Revision Petition dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Vittal Janardhan Jadhav Vs. Cit
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN441(Kar)
ORDERThese petitions are filed by Vittal Janardhan Jadhav and two others seeking for various reliefs.2. Facts in brief are as under :Respondent authorities conducted search and seizure under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to 'the Act') of the assessees, namely, Vithal Janardhan Jadhav, Vishwas alias Vijay Vasant Deshmukh and Vinayak Vilas Ghodke on 16-6-1999 at Hubli. Search and seizure action was commenced and concluded on 16-6-1999. As a result of search and seizure actions, a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs was seized from the said three persons. Notice under section 158BC of the Act was issued and served on the assessees. Returns of income-tax in Form No. 2B declaring their undisclosed income were filed for the block period from 1-4-1989 to 16-6-1999.Petitioners and others claimed the cash seized as belonging to them. They filed writ petitions in this court in WP Nos. 2358 to 2377 of 2000. This court disposed of the said petitions and directed the authoriti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »