Karnataka Court October 2004 Judgments
Srinivasa Electricals, Represented by Its Proprietor Vs. the Additiona ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR5042; [2006]147STC265(Kar)
H.L. Dattu, J.1. Interpretation of Entry 3 of VIII Schedule to Section 5(3)(c) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('KST Act' for short) has fallen for consideration of this Court in this appeal.2. Entry 3 for the relevant assessment year namely, 1994-1995 reads as under:'Goods falling under items (i) & (iii) of Serial No.2 of Part 'E' of the Second Schedule i.e., all electrical goods, instruments, apparatus and appliances including fans and lighting bulbs and all other parts and accessories by excluding pump sets with electric motors of not more than 10 H.P. and dry cell and dry cell batteries.'3. Section 5(3)(c) of the KST Act starts with a non-obstante clause and proceeds further to say that in the case of sale of any of the goods mentioned in Column (2) of the VIII Schedule to the Act which has already been subject to tax under Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) by a dealer liable to tax under this Act, a tax at the rate specified in the corresponding entry of Column (3) of the said Sc...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Srinivasa Murthy Vs. the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Lim ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant87; 2004(7)KarLJ666
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission in original Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 44.10 of the KERC (ES & D) Code 2000-2001 can exercise the suo-moto powers. If it is so, whether an order can be passed without giving an opportunity for the petitioner herein.2. The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the demand notice dated 21.12.1999 had filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority. On 8.4.2002 the first Appellate Authority allowed the objections of the petitioner in-part. On the ground that the order of the first Appellate Authority was not complied with by the Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Kunigal, by invoking Section 44.10 of the KERC (ES & D) Code 2000-2001 filed an original petition. The 2nd respondent heard the petition filed by the petitioner. After hearing the parties, the 2nd respondent noticed that the first Appellate Authority had comm...
Tag this Judgment!Venkateshwara Engineering Works Vs. the Additional Commissioner of Com ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC681(Kar)
H.L. Dattu, J.1. The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of diesel generating sets. It is registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ('Act' for short). The assessee leases the diesel generating sets for hire.2. The assessee had filed its annual returns before the assessing authority, declaring the total turnover at Rs. 9,26,410/- and had claimed exemption on the entire turnover for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-963. The assessing authority after rejecting the returns filed by the assessee, had issued a pre-assessment notice proposing to levy tax at 5% on the rentals received for leasing diesel generating sets. In response to the pre-assessment notice, the assessee had filed its objections, and in that, had specifically contended that the income derived from the leasing of Diesel Generator sets is not one of the items enumerated in the VII Schedule to the KST Act up-to 31.3.1996 to become liable to pay tax under Section 5C of t...
Tag this Judgment!B.D. Manjunath and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR927; 2005(3)KarLJ483
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. In all these cases, since common questions of fact and law are involved and these petitioners have sought for common reliefs, these petitions have been clubbed together and a common order has been passed.2. In Writ Petition No. 35501 of 2004, the petitioner has sought to declare that, the postponement of the election to the Board of Management of the 3rd respondent-Bank scheduled to be held as per the calendar of events, vide Annexure-A, dated 10.8.2004, as illegal and without jurisdiction and also to direct the respondents to proceed with the election process as per the calendar of events from the stage, at which, it is interrupted by publication vide Annexure C dated 4-9-2004.3. The petitioner is claiming to be the member of the 3rd respondent-bank and he is eligible to contest in the election. The term of the office of the members of the Board of Management of the 3rd respondent-bank has come to an end. To elect the New Board of Directors by way of election, th...
Tag this Judgment!H.R. Ravindranath Vs. Syndicate Bank Represented by Its General Manage ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2350; (2005)IIILLJ124Kant
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent Bank on 13.8.1973 as a Stenographer. He came to be promoted as an Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I w.e.f. 13.9.1978. From 30. 10.1992, the petitioner was functioning as Manager at Lachyan Branch of the respondent Bank. While working in the said Branch, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 25.8.1993 alleging that he demanded bribe of Rs. 1,000/-- from five persons namely (1) Sharanappa S. Sambhaji, (2) Madeva R. Badigara, (3) Dharmaraya Peerappa Mujagond, (4) Siddappa Hanumantha Harijan and (5) Iyagand Yeshwant Sindgi, and when they did not pay, the petitioner refused to release the loan. The further allegation was he released loans to three persons namely (1) Shivappa Gowda Iranagonda Patil, (2) Mahadeva Siddappa Talakere and (3) Naganatha Shankarappa Patel, after accepting the bribe from them. Annexure-A is the charge sheet. The petitioner submitted a defence statement on 22.9.1993 denyin...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, by the Vice Chairman and M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KarLJ333; (2005)IILLJ219Kant
Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. Since all these appeal are directed against the common judgment dated 20lh March 2000 made in Writ Petition Nos. 23990 to 23991 of 1997, these appeals were taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The appellants-3 and 2 in Writ Appeal Nos. 3463 and 3464 of 2001 are the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation'), and Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Service respectively. The 3rd appellant is the Chief Labour and Welfare Officer of the Corporation.3. The appellant in Writ Appeal Nos. 3856 to 3857 of 2001 is the Akila Karnataka Rajya Raste Sarige Nowkarara Mahamandali which is a registered trade union of workmen working in the Corporation.4. The 1st respondent in Writ Appeal Nos. 3463 to 3464 of 2001 is the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Staff and Workers Federation. The 2nd respondent is an employee and conductor in the Corporation and was also the Secretary of the Road Transport ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kademani and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Secretary, Departme ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant124; 2005(2)KarLJ267
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. Although, the petitions are listed under the caption 'Hearing on I.A', with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are finally heard and are disposed of by this order.2. The petitioners are agriculturists by profession owing agricultural land in Sy.No. 154/1, Annigere village, measuring in an extent of 8 Acres 9 Guntas, which has a borewell. It is stated that though Annigere Village suffered from severe drought, successively for 3 years, there was sufficient ground water in the borewell on the petitioners' land, used for cultivation of crops, the only lively-hood of the petitioners. The petitioners further state that excess water was allowed to be used by the villagers for drinking purpose, free of charge. In view of the drought condition the petitioners allowed the villagers and the local residents to partake of the water from the petitioner's borewell, free of cost. It is the allegation of the petitioners that by letter dated...
Tag this Judgment!M. Shivaprasad Rai Vs. Vijaya Bank and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KarLJ208; (2005)ILLJ948Kant
S.R. Nayak, A.C.J.1. This appeal is by the delinquent. In the departmental enquiry, the delinquent submitted a letter dated 3.02.2004 marked as Annexure-C to the Disciplinary Authority requesting the latter that the former be permitted to be represented by any one of the five persons mentioned in the order of preference in his letter dated 3.02.2004. The Disciplinary Authority on receipt of Annexure-C issued an endorsement dated 04.02.2004 marked as Annexure-D refusing permission to the delinquent to be represented by any one of the five persons mentioned in the order of preference in his letter on the ground that all of them are Branch Heads. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Disciplinary Authority, the delinquent has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. It is the contention of the delinquent that in - terms of Sub- Regulation (7) of Regulation 6 of the Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981, for short, 'the ...
Tag this Judgment!S.B. Halappanavar and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Secretary, Healt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR633]; ILR2005KAR57
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioners were initially appointed either as Rural Medical Practitioners (RMPs) or Subsidised Medical Practitioners (SMPs) or Aided Medical Practitioners (AMPs) on ad hoc basis under different Rules. The State Government promulgated Karnataka State Civil Services (Absorption of persons appointed as RMPs/SMPs/ AMPs in the Indian System of Medicines and Homoeopathy Department) (Special) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Rules') The Special Rules provided absorption of RMPs, SMPs and AMPs in regular posts. Accordingly, the petitioners had been absorbed to regular posts.2. The Special Rules provided for fixation of pay. of absorbed persons at the minimum of the pay scale of Rs. 1720-3170. Rule 5 provides that the services rendered by the absorbed persons shall be subject to Rule 235 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules which stipulates that if the previous service rendered is not covered by contributory Provident Fund, the absorbed Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Blue Nile Advertising Private Limited Vs. the Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant189; 2005(2)KarLJ340
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner a Company Limited, carrying on business of Advertising Agency, secured permission from the 1st respondent to display three hoardings on yearly basis on Jumma Masjid Road, located at the far end of Commercial Street in Bangalore City. The licences are said, to be currently in force. The petitioner states that it paid a hefty sum of money towards licence fee and demands of the 1st respondent. It is further stated that the location of one of the hoardings is at a vantage point i.e., without any obstruction to visibility for a person entering commercial street.2. The petitioner further submits that the 2nd respondent is an association of traders in Bangalore, having no commercial activities and the 3rd respondent an Event Management Unit, not being a licensed advertiser, applied and secured a licence based on which, it erected temporary arches and banners across commercial street. It is the allegation of the petitioner that these banners and arches...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »