Karnataka Court November 2004 Judgments
Raja Brick and Tile Industries, Rep. by Its Joint Managing Partner Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR34; [2006]146STC124(Kar)
H.L. Dattu, J.1. These appeals are filed against the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-II, Bangalore, in SMR. CST/64/98-99 and in No. SMR. CST/65/98-99 dated 14.1.1999. By these orders, the revisional authority has revised the orders passed by the first appellate authority in appeal Nos. KST. AP. 147/97-98 and CST. AP. 38/97-98 dated 9.6.1998 and has restored the assessment orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessments), Tumkur, passed both under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('KST Act' for short) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('CST Act' for short) for the assessment year 1993-1994.2. The appellant is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of manufacture of bricks and tiles. The assessee is a dealer registered both under the KST Act and the CST Act. The assessing authority after rejecting the annual returns filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1993-1994, has passed the assessment order under ...
Tag this Judgment!Sharma Transports, Rep. by Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Karnataka, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR80; 2005(1)KarLJ539
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. These petitions are directed against the levy and collection of 5% case tax levied under Section 3 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 and 3A of the Karnataka Act VII of 1995 as illegal, unconstitutional and void. The petitioner wants a refund of tax made over by the petitioner for the schedule vehicles in terms of the schedule from 1.4.1995 till First Quarter and under Act 4/ 02 effective from 15.4.2002.2. The pleadings of the parties are as under:The first respondent introduced an amendment to the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957. By an amendment a new power to imposition of cess was statutorily introduced. The amendment by Act No. VII of 1995 inserted Sec.3A. Annexure 'A' is the notification. Section 3A purported to levy and collect by way of cess - tax at the rate of 5% on the Motor Vehicle Tax levied under Section 3 of the Act. The purpose of the cess was for the Bangalore Mass Rapid Transit System. The said amendment was challenge...
Tag this Judgment!G.P. Pillai and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR1027]; ILR2005KAR381; 2005(2)KarLJ218
ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. The petitioners, who are accused in C.C.No. 9087/2002 on the file of the Court of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, have approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a request to quash the proceedings initiated in the said case besides cognizance taken by that Court for the offence under Section 304A of I.P.C.2. Brief facts, which gave rise to the present matter, are;The first petitioner-occupier/manager, second petitioner-Vice-President (Production) and third petitioner- Supervisor of M/s. Caryl Laboratories Limited, situated in Chikkaswamy Layout at Jaraganahalli in Bangalore, have been prosecuted in C.C.No. 12933/ 2001 on the complaint filed against them for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, alleging that on 30.09.2001 a workman of the said factory by name Shivanand got electric shock holding a pipe, connected to the overhead tank and water basin, to ensure proper support to come down through the M.S. ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. S.M. Suresh Vs. G.P. Vamana Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR904
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The case is at the stage of admission and the Counsel argued the matter on merits for final disposal.2. The defendant is the appellant in the suit. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession of the suit schedule property. According to plaintiff, an unregistered agreement was entered into between the parties. By the terms of which, the defendant was to be in possession for a period of five years. As a consideration for such possession, the defendant has to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- as interest free deposit. On the completion of five years, the amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- to be refunded and the defendant to re-deliver possession to the plaintiff. Upon completion of the period of five years, the suit is filed.3. It is pertinent to note that certain developments with regard to the unregistered agreement have taken place in the course of trial. In the first instance, the marking of the document is disallowed for want of registr...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Razak Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-division an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KarLJ230
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This is one more case of an 'Adhyaksha' of a Gram Panchayat, who is averse of facing the no-confidence motion that has been moved by the Members of the Panchayat who have lost confidence in such 'Adhyaksha', who has approached this Court to invalidate the notice dated 2-11-2004 issued by the Assistant Commissioner fixing a date for the meeting to be held on 24-11-2004 to enable the Members to consider the motion.2. Submission of Sri Manjunath, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the notice is in violation of requirements of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Pancheyat Raj (Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994. Learned Counsel also submits that the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner was not accompanied with a copy of the proposed motion and therefore the notice is bad. In this regard, learned Counsel submits that compliance of requirements of Rule 3 of the Rules have been held to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Govt. of Meghalaya, Rep. by Director of Lotteries and ors. Vs. Under S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant117; ILR2005KAR104
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The legislative and executive competency of the State of Karnataka in declaring Karnataka State as free zone from online and internet lotteries is called in question in these Writ Petitions.2. Govt. of Meghalaya is the 1st petitioner in W.P.No.31393-95/04. 2nd petitioner is one of the agents of the State of Meghalaya. 3rd petitioner therein is the marketing agent of paper lottery of the State of Meghalaya.3. In W.P.Nos. 31451-54/04 State of Sikkim is the 1st petitioner, 2nd petitioner is a marketing agent of the State of Sikkim, 3rd petitioner is engaged in occupation of selling lottery tickets of online lotteries of State of Sikkim and Meghalaya. 3rd petitioner is also selling tickets of the State of Sikkim and 4th petitioner is the director of the 3rd petitioner.4. Petitioners are challenging the notification dated 24.7.2004 issued by the State of Karnataka prohibiting the sale of online and Internet lotteries and declaring the State of Karnataka as free zon...
Tag this Judgment!Revathi Sanjeev Shetty Vs. Regional Transport Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR986; 2005(1)KarLJ439
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. The petitioner has called in question the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Bangalore Division, dated 30-12-2003 in Appeal No. TAX 50 of 2002, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the first respondent calling upon him to pay the tax and penalty from 1-1-1999 to 30-9-2001 in a total sum of Rs. 6,70,320/- was rejected.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows.--3. The petitioner is a transport operator and is a registered owner of the Motor Vehicle bearing Registration No. KA 01 5044 registered in the office of the first respondent. On 27-2-1999, she intimated the non-use of the vehicle in Form 30 stating therein that the Vehicle in question has been stopped for major repairs and that the said vehicle would be garaged at Southern Travels, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad (A.P.). The said intimation of non-use was provisionally accepted with effect from 1-3-1999. The respondent has deputed Senior Inspector of Motor ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Malligamma @ Malligavva and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by th ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1557
Nagamohan Das, J.1. The first appellant is aged about 50 years and suffering from chromic renal failure from the year 2003 and she is on dialysis twice in a week. In addition to renal failure, the first appellant is suffering from hypertension diabetes. As per Annexure-'A' dated 15.7.2004, the Doctors advised the first appellant to undergo Kidney Transplantation at the earliest. Further, it is the case of first appellant that her blood group is 'O' positive, whereas the blood group of first appellant's husband, three daughters and two sons are 'B' positive as per Annexure 'B' to 'B5' and do not match with the blood group of first appellant.2. The second appellant is aged about 32 years, married to Mr. Shivananjaiah having a daughter aged about 12 years and a son aged about 10 years. The second appellant is a house-wife and her blood group is 'O' positive. The second appellant through her husband and his relatives are closely known to the family of first appellant. The second appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Pooja Travels and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR164; 2005(1)KarLJ419
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions i.e., Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('Corporation' for short) and two private operators are seeking writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Secretaries of Regional Transport Authorities ('RTA' for short) as well as the Secretary of the Karnataka State Transport Authority ('KSTA' for short), granting Contract Carriage Permits ('CCP' for short) and Stage Carriage Permits ('SCP' for short) in favour of the various private operators. Since the common questions of facts and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they have been clubbed and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner in W.P. Nos. 40338 of 2004 to 40342 of 2004, 35189 of 2004, 35190 of 2004, 35374 of 2004, 18663 to 18668 and 18670 to 18672 of 2004 is the 'Corporation' and is represented by the learned Advocates Sri Ashok Harnahalli and Sri S. Prakash Shetty. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 37259 and 37260 o...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Meghalaya and ors. Vs. Under Secretary to Government of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KarLJ552
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The legislative and executive competency of the State of Karnataka in declaring Karnataka State as free zone from online and internet lotteries is called in question in these writ petitions.2. Government of Meghalaya is the 1st petitioner in W.P. Nos. 31393 to 31395 of 2004. 2nd petitioner is one of the agents of the State of Meghalaya. 3rd petitioner therein is the marketing agent of paper lottery of the State of Meghalaya.3. In W.P. Nos. 31451 to 31454 of 2004, State of Sikkim is the 1st petitioner, 2nd petitioner is a marketing agent of the State of Sikkim, 3rd petitioner is engaged in occupation of selling lottery tickets of online lotteries of States of Sikkim and Meghalaya. 3rd petitioner is also selling lottery tickets of the State of Sikkim and 4th petitioner is the director of the 3rd petitioner.4. Petitioners are challenging the notification dated 24-7-2004 issued by the State of Karnataka prohibiting the sale of online and internet lotteries and dec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »