Karnataka Court March 2004 Judgments
Torgal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Ta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC420(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylandra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner is a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. For the accounting periods 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, the petitioner was admittedly in arrears of tax to the tune of Rs. 1,08,69,687 and after realising a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs from out of this amount the petitioner was called upon to pay the balance of Rs. 93,69,687 as per notice dated March 26, 2002, copy at annexure A, issued to the petitioner. The said notice was a recovery notice. The petitioner not having paid this amount for a considerable length of time it appears the authorities under the Act have resorted to various recovery proceedings under the Act itself. It is aggrieved by such recovery proceedings the petitioner has approached this Court for relief.2. Sri S.G. Shivaram, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was in dire financial difficulties, that the petitioner had made his best efforts to pay as much tax as possible, that he h...
Tag this Judgment!H. Raghavendra Rao Vs. Buckeye Corporation (i) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2633; ILR2004KAR1989; 2004(4)KarLJ160
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1.This revision is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 397 Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate in recalling the order of dismissal of the complaint and discharge of the accused which was passed on 25.9.00.2. The brief facts leading to this revision are that a private complaint has been filed against the petitioner before the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, which was registered in CC 8351/ 98 (PCR 327/98) on 21.9.98 for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 423, 420 & 506 of IPC. After perusal of the complaint and on the submission of the counsel for the complainant, the Magistrate directed the office to register the case as a PCR and post the matter for orders on 6.10.98 by his order dated 24.9.98. Later by Order dated 28.7.99 the IV ACMM directed to register the case for offences punishable under Sections 420, 423 & 506 IPC. and posted for evidence before charge. However, it is seen that as pe...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Narayan Naik Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)KarLJ117
ORDERM.S. Rajendra Prasad, J.1. This revision petition by A-8 filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 12-1-2004 passed in S.C. No. 71 of 2000 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Karwar, wherein the petitioner and others have been facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 323, 354, 365, 366, 384, 465, 471 and 395 read with Sections 149 and 120B of the IPC, challenging the legality and propriety of the order impugned.2. The Court has heard the arguments of Sri C.V, Nagesh, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Sri B.A. Belliappa, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent-State.3. The learned Counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that there is absolutely no primes facie case made out against the petitioner and the evidence collected by the prosecution, even if unrebutted, would not lead to conviction of the petitioner for the said offences. The learned C...
Tag this Judgment!Deve Gowda and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, Chief Secretary and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3159; 2004(7)KarLJ173
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are the residents of Chikkanahalli Village, Hollekote Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District. Consequent on the construction of the Hemavathi Left Bank Canal, the vacant sites and houses of the petitioners were affected by the seepage water. In respect of this the Land Acquisition Officer, after notice to the petitioners on their claim application, passed an award dated 25.8.2002. This award was approved by the Deputy Commissioner on 7.11.2002. Thereafter, since the State Government has not paid the compensation, the petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions seeking for a direction to pay compensation as per the award.2. During the pendency of these Writ Petitions the Land Acquisition Officer passed a second award dated 6.6.2003 at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan. The petitioners made application before the Court seeking for amendment of the prayer in these Writ Petitions to quash the secon...
Tag this Judgment!B.M. Arif Vs. Boston Tea (India) Ltd., Rep. by Its Director
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC33; 2005CriLJ375; ILR2004KAR2382; 2004(5)KarLJ439
ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J.1. The petitioner herein is the accused and the respondent, the complainant in C.C.No. 1853/2000 on the file of the JMFC (IV Court), Mangalore, registered for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In that case, after the complainant's evidence was over, and during the course of his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner contended that the complainant company had taken from him deposit of Rs. 50,000/- and a blank cheque as security and that angered by his act of not supporting the complainant company with regard to the action of Health Officer against complainant company for alleged adulteration of articles, the blank cheque has been filed up by the company and has been misused. He also expressed a desire to lead evidence in his defence. Thereafter, he filed an application on 21.11.2003 requesting the Court to issue summons to his witness G.M. Mustaffa. The ground for examination of that witness as urged by the accuse...
Tag this Judgment!H. Aziz Khan and ors. Vs. Smt. Muniyamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2571
ORDER 6 RULE 17 - Amendment -Doctrine of relation back to the date of plaint - Exception - Explained - Delay in making application for relief -Where it is arguable that relief sought by way of amendment would be barred by limitation - HELD - The relief sought to be introduced being barred by limitation is not one of the criterion to determine the application, because it is at the best an arguable point. The plea of limitation could be made an issue after the allowing the amendment prayed for to refuse amendment on the ground that the relief sought to be introduced by the amendment is time-barred would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. In order to avoid such multiplicity of proceedings and for effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties, the amendment sought for is required to be allowed.Given the facts of the case, the Court held, that this case is one such where there should be an exception to the Doctrine of Relation back in context of amendment of pleading, an a...
Tag this Judgment!Thamanna Shivalingappa Teli Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)KarLJ451
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. Both the revision petitions are directed against the common order of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, dated 28-2-2002 in Cri. A. Nos. 120 of 1996 and 122 of 2001 relating to the delivery of the property.2. The brief facts of the case are that; Thammanna Shivalingappa Teli, petitioner herein, lodged a complaint with the police stating that on 2-11-1985 gold articles were stolen from his house. The police took up investigation. One Appasaheb Chavan was arrested on 22-4-1986. Consequent upon the voluntary statement made by Appasaheb Chavan, several articles including gold ornaments were recovered from the possession of Ganeshmal Bhagwanji Rathod, 2nd respondent herein. When the properties were produced before the Court, the petitioner filed an application on 17-4-1989 for interim custody of the property, however, that application was not decided. On completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against Appasaheb Chavan. The case was tr...
Tag this Judgment!Oxford Teachers Training Institution, by Its Secretary and ors. Vs. Na ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2342; 2004(4)KarLJ574
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. As common question of law is involved in all these 5 Writ Petitions, by consent of parties they are taken up for consideration and finally disposed of by this common order, even though they are listed for preliminary hearing.2. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions filed an application to the respondents for grant of recognition to B.Ed. course for the Academic year 2004-2005. Their specific case is that the last date prescribed for submitting the applications was 31.12.2003. They have submitted the said application within the stipulated period. As the Government had not granted the No Objection Certificate, they could not produce the same along with application. The Government granted NOC only on 7.2.2004. Immediately on receipt of the NOC, in all these 5 cases, the same has been produced before the respondents within a couple of days thereafter. However, the respondents have declined to consider the application of the petitioners for grant of recognition for...
Tag this Judgment!Shankaranarayana Construction Co. and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Kar)107; [2004]270ITR356(KAR); [2004]270ITR356(Karn)
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. These appeals arise out of two different orders passed by a single Bench of this court whereby W. P. No. 11258 of 1998 (see : [1999]239ITR902(KAR) and W. Ps. Nos. 10415-17 of 1999 have been dismissed.2. The appellant--Shankaranarayana Construction Company is a partnership concern. It owns a coffee estate in Chickmagalur and carries on business of growing and selling of plantation crops such as coffee and pepper. In terms of a show cause notice dated February 26, 1998, the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (AIT and CV), Bangalore, called upon the appellant-firm to show cause why assessment order dated April 19, 1996, for the assessment year 1995-96 be not set aside and the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Chickmagalur, directed to re-do the assessment on the lines set out in the show cause notice. The notice set out the relevant facts which were to the extent relevant for the present as under :'For the years 1990-91 to 1993-94 assessment was conclude...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. K. Murugesan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR169]; 2004(6)KarLJ120
Tirth S. Thakur, J.1. This writ appeal calls in question the correctness of an Order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby W.P. No. 6738 of 1993 filed by the respondent has been allowed and the Order of dismissal of the petitioner from service set aside reserving liberty to the respondent to conclude the proceedings afresh after considering explanations submitted by the petitioner.2. The petitioner-respondent herein was enrolled in the Indian Army by the Branch Recruiting Officer at Madras in September 1988 and sent to No. 4, Training Battalion (MT), ASC Centre (South) in Bangalore for training. Despite three chances and extra coaching given to the respondent, he failed thrice in the Commandant's drill test. On the recommendations of the Commanding Officer of the Training Battalion, he was discharged from service under Rule 13(3) of the Army Rules on the ground that he was 'unlikely to become an efficient soldier'. He was however re-enrolled on 4-12-1989 through HQ Quo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »