Karnataka Court March 2004 Judgments
N. Sriraman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(7)KarLJ152
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. Issue Rule. With consent, these petitions which raise common questions of law for consideration have been heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common order. The petitions assail the correctness of two interim orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, whereby the ongoing process of selection for appointment of non-civil service employees of the State Government to Indian Administrative Service has been stayed. In addition the petitions pray for a writ of prohibition restraining the Tribunal from proceeding further with the hearing of the case filed before it. The controversy arises in the following backdrop:Indian Administrative Service (Appointment and Selection) Regulations, 1997 envisage appointment of persons possessing outstanding merit and ability and holding gazetted posts in a substantive capacity with not less than eight years of continuous service in the State service to the Indian Administrative Service. Regulat...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Coffee Curing Works Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST206(Karn)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. These two petitions are disposed of by this common order since the facts and law involved in these cases are same or similar.Facts in brief are as under:Petitioner is a public limited company. It carries on the business of procuring coffee seeds. It cures them and thereafter sells the same both locally and internationally. It filed its return of turnover for the year ended March 31,1999. The State Government issued a policy dated July 12, 2003 providing for a package of incentives and concessions in terms of annexure A. Clause 5 of the said policy provides for sales tax concession to the industrial sector. Petitioner undertook expansion/modernization of its industrial establishment in the light of the policy. Petitioner applied for a certificate seeking for concession from the Department of Industries and Commerce, annexure B is the certificate. Petitioner was under a bona fide belief that the benefit of exemption from payment of tax would be available to it. Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. N.S. Srikanta Sastry Vs. the Secretary, Department of Health and F ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR1154]; ILR2004KAR1866; 2004(5)KarLJ493; (2004)IIILLJ322Kant
ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J.1. In this Writ Petition, a former Assistance Surgeon cum Health Officer of the Department of Health and Family welfare services , has challenged the order dated 17.09.2003 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore , dismissing his application (i.e, Application No. 2149/2000)in which he had sought for setting aside an order of the Government dismissing him from service.2. By order dated 27.06.1996 a charge memo was served on the petitioner on the charge that after his repatriation from ESI to the Department of Health and Family welfare services, he had remained absent from duty for the period from 28.08.1985 to 19.10.1995 and that though subsequently, he was posted to Mangelagi in Chittapur taluk, Gulbarga District on 18.11.1993, he did not take charge at the place of his posting .The petitioner gave a reply on 30.07.1996, contending that in pursuance of transfer order, he was relieved from ESI, Bangalore, on 26.04.1985 and that though he had report...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Neelakantappa and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2357; 2004(5)KarLJ407
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioners and their Predecessors claim to be the purchasers of 1 acre each of land in Sy. No. 49 of Hirehalli Village as per two registered sale deeds dated 5.6.1968. The land in question was part of a land which had been granted in favour of one Rangaiah, a person belonging to schedule caste community in the year 1961 and it is the version of the petitioners that the grant was on collecting an upset price of Rs. 10/- per acre. The Saguvali chit in respect of the land had been issued on 27.4.1965. It is from out of such a granted land that the said Sri Rangaiah had sold the extent of 1 acre each to the predecessors of petitioners 1 and 2.2. On and after coining into force of the provision of the Karnataka Schedule castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of certain Lands) Act, 1978, the original grantee applied to the Assistant commissioner Under the provision of Section 5 of the act praying for invalidating the sale transaction and for restoration of t...
Tag this Judgment!U.G. Srinivasa Rao Vs. Vinaykumar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant450; ILR2004KAR2928; 2004(4)KarLJ550
Chandrashekaraiah, J. 1. The parties in this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in the Trial Court.2. This appeal is by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Court below.3. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and for possession, in the alternative for partition of the family properties and also prayed for an alternative relief which reads as follows:-'If for any reason if the Court were to feel that the plaintiff is not entitled to either of the afore said reliefs, he may be granted a decree for refund of the consideration amount paid with expenses incurred for stamps etc., at Rs. 30,000/- with interest at 21% p.a. by way of damages with a charge on the suit schedule properties.'4. The case of the plaintiff is; he purchased the suit schedule 'A' property from defendant-1 under the registered sale deed dated 10.2.1986 for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- as defendant-1 required the said money fo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. Vs. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Kar)488; [2004]268ITR232(KAR); [2004]268ITR232(Karn)
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) is filed against the order dt. 28th. June, 2002, passed by the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in ITA No. 550/Bang/1999 relating to the asst. yr. 1996-97. The respondent assessee is a Government Company.2. The question of law involved in this appeal is whether sales-tax collected by the assessee on its sales, should be treated as part of 'total turnover' for the purpose of computing the profits derived from export, for claiming deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act.3. Sub-section (1) of Section 80HHC entitles an assessee engaged in the business of export, to claim deduction of the profits derived by it from export, in computing its total income, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of that section. Sub-section (3)(a) of Section 80HHC provides how 'profits derived from export' should be arrived at. It provides that profits derived from export shall be the amount w...
Tag this Judgment!Comat Infoscribe Private Limited, by Its Director and ors. Vs. Nil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2589; 2004(5)KarLJ393
ORDERKumar, J 1. Company Petition No. 40/2003 is filed by Comat Infoscribe Pvt. Ltd., and Co.P. No. 42/2003 is filed by Bangalore Cyberspace Pvt. Ltd., which are transferor companies and Co.P.No. 41/2003 is filed by Comat Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which is the transferee company. These three petitions are filed by these companies seeking sanction of the scheme of amalgamation proposed by them where under two transferor companies are amalgamated with the transferee company. Therefore, ultimately Court has to decide whether the scheme proposed by these three companies require to be sanctioned or not. Therefore all these company petitions are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order.2. In the scheme Bangalore Cyberspace Private Limited is referred to as first transferor company. The said company was incorporated on 21st March 2000 under the Companies Act 1956 with its registered office at No. 66, 11th Main, Malleswaram, Bangalore - 560 003. The authorized cap...
Tag this Judgment!S. Faiyaz Vs. Nisar Ahmed
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)KarLJ317
ORDERA.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner-tenant has presented this revision petition calling in question the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 27th January, 2003 passed in H.R.C. No. 10191 of 1995 on the file of the V Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore allowing the eviction petition and ordering eviction of the petitioner from the petition premises.2. The respondent-landlord filed the petition in the Court below under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short), on the ground that the petition premises is required for establishing his sons in the business of retail vending of clothes in which line of business they have good experience. In order to substantiate his case the landlord examined himself and also got examined one of his sons. Certificates showing the experience of his son in retailing of clothes was also produced from two ex-employers of his son. The tenant defended the eviction peti...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. K.S. Nagamma Vs. Mrs. M.P. Manekshah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2309; 2004(4)KarLJ408
ORDER 22 RULE 4 AND 4A - KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 - SECTIONS 5(1) AND (2), 27 -- Procedure in case of death of defendant and procedure when there are no legal representatives, legal representative as contemplated under Section 5(1) and (2) -- Position of Legal representatives who do not come within the purview of Section 5(1) and (2) and enjoy protection of Section 27 of the Act -- Position of persons who are not members of the family of deceased tenant. The occupant of the premises who does not inherent the tenancy of the deceased respondent under Section 5 of the Act and who does not enjoy the protection provided to a legal representative under Section 27 of the Act to resist the recovery of possession by the landlord, merely comes on record to suffer an order of eviction and to facilitate the recovery of the petition premises by the petitioner landlord. HELD - If the present occupant is not covered by either Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 5, the only appropriate role ...
Tag this Judgment!State by Revenue Commissioner and Secretary to Government Vs. Shalligh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)KarLJ259
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, assailing the correctness of the common order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk dated 22nd August, 1979 in respect of Case Nos. LRF, 1623:74-75, LRF:328:74, LRF:317:74-75 and LRF:324:74-75, insofar as it relates to registration of occupancy rights in favour of respondents 1 to 4 to an extent of 13 guntas (Sy. No. 83), 11 guntas (Sy. No. 83), 01 acre 28 guntas and 01 acre (Sy. No. 76 and Sy. No. 83 respectively) and 21 guntas (Sy. No. 83) respectively situate at Chikkallasandra Village, Bangalore South Taluk, has presented the instant writ petition.2. The only grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the lands in Sy, Nos. 76 and .83 of Chikkallasandra, being a jodi village are classified as Government tank and out of the said survey numbers, occupancy rights to an extent of 01 acre 28 guntas (Sy. No. 76) and 03 acres 26 guntas (Sy. No. 83) have been confirmed in favour of respondents 1 to 4 when the lands in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »