Karnataka Court March 2004 Judgments
K. Ramalingam and Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC300(Kar)
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellants in these two appeals are registered dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the KST Act'). They purchase bedsheets, bedspreads, napkins and terry towels, all in lengths, from manufacturers and/or their agents in other States and sell them locally at Bangalore to retail dealers and non-dealer customers. Facts in S.T.A. No. 35 of 2000:2. The appellant had declared total sales turnover of Rs. 37,63,546.40 for the assessment period 1998-99 and claimed exemption from sales tax in regard to the entire sales turnover on the ground that textiles were exempt from tax under entry No. 3 (old entry No. 8A) of the Fifth Schedule to the Act. The assessing authority made an order of assessment dated December 2, 1999. He found that the assessee had purchased terry towels (turkey towels) of the total value of Rs. 4,95,752, during the assessment period. He determined the sales turnover relating to terry towels as Rs. 5,43,345 by adding 9.6 per ce...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Prakash Alias Dali Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ584
ORDERMohan Shanthanagoudar, J.1. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 1-2-2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Somwarpet in Crime No. 156 of 2002, whereby the Magistrate has allowed the application dated 26-11-2002 filed fey the Investigation Officer seeking direction to the medical officer to conduct blood test of the accused by collecting sample of blood from him in order to ascertain as to whether the accused has caused pregnancy of the complainant or not, the accused has come forward with the present petition.2. The brief facts of the case giving raise to the present petition are that:Crime No. 156 of 2002 is registered in Somwarpet Police Station on the basis of the complaint lodged by one G.S. Poornima on 15-11-2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 313, 417 and 506 of the IPC. It is alleged in the said complaint that the accused-petitioner herein was in love with the complainant-Poornima; assuring the complainant that he would marry her and ma...
Tag this Judgment!Ashoka Motors Vs. H. Ibrahim
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ657
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The proceedings which has given rise to this revision petition had a chequered career.2. I have heard Mr. R.B. Sadashivappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant and Mr. Vishwanath Shendge, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord.3. Few facts are necessary to appreciate the rival contentions of both the Counsels. The respondent-landlord initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner-tenant under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The case of the landlord is that the petitioner-tenant is in occupation of the shop premises bearing No. 80 (old No. 97/8), Commercial Street, Bangalore, on a monthly rent of Rs. 165/- and the tenancy commences from 1st of each month of English calendar. The eviction proceedings were initiated in HRC No. 8498 of 1980. The said eviction petition was contested by the tenant, inter alia, contending that the requirement of the landlord is neither bona fide nor reasonable. Suffice ...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Prakash @ Dali Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2637
ORDERMohan Shanthanagoudar, J. 1. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 01.02.2003 passed by learned J.M.F.C Somwarpet in crime No. 156 of 2002, whereby the Magistrate has allowed the application dated 26.11.2002 filed by the Investigation Officer seeking direction to the medical officer to conduct blood test, of the accused by collecting sample of blood from him in order to ascertain as to whether the accused has caused pregnancy of the complainant or not, the accused has come forward with the present petition .2. The brief facts of the case giving raise to the present petition are that :Crime No. 156/2002 is registered in Somwarpet police station on the basis of the complaint lodged by one G.S. Poornima on 15.11.2002 for the offences punishable Under Section 313, 417, 506 I.P.C. It is alleged in the said complaint that the accused-petitioner herein was in love with the complainant Poornima, assuring the complainant that he would marry her and made her to believe so, had illici...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Chowdappa Vs. Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC337; 2005ACJ644; 2004(4)KarLJ121
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The injured person in a motor vehicle accident, being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs. 2,94,100/- with interest at 6% per annum, has preferred this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act').2. The fact that the appellant sustained certain grievous injuries in the accident occurred on 27-3-1997 involving the motor vehicle owned by the 1st respondent and insured by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is not in dispute. The appellant was 28 years of age on the date of the accident and according to him, he was earning monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- out of agriculture/sericulture and also by milk-vending. As per the medical evidence, he sustained 90% of permanent disability to the whole body. In the premise of these facts, the appellant claimed compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-.3. The claim petition was contested by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company by filing written statement. In support of the claim for compensation, the a...
Tag this Judgment!Guddappa Kariyappa (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Fakirappa Durgappa Ilekar an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)KarLJ441
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners, questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Hirekerur dated 13th April, 1989 in case No. KLR/SK/VLR/24/HIREKERUR, had filed an appeal on the file of the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Haveri in LRA No. 116 of 1989. When the matter was pending adjudication, in view of the amendment of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the constitution of the Appellate Authority was abolished and the parties were permitted to file a civil petition. Accordingly, the petitioners filed Civil Petition No. 7802 of 1991 and the same is converted into the instant writ petition.2. The petitioners claiming to be tenants had filed Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 36/1 measuring 01 acre 08 guntas and the application filed by the petitioners had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal on 7th February, 1977 and the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners. Assailing the said ord...
Tag this Judgment!iranna Vs. Mohammadali Khadarsab Mulla and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: 2004ACJ1396; 2004(7)KarLJ143
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. In a bodily injury case, the injured, a minor represented by his father, natural guardian, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, has preferred this appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), calling in question the judgment and award dated 17.9.2002, passed in M.V.C. No. 1254 of 2000 on the file of the court of the Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Saundatti (for short 'M.A.C.T.').2. Facts in brief, noticed, for decision making are:On 19.4.2000 at about 1345 hours, while Iranna, son of Basappa Kurahatti was walking on the left side of the road in Kasaba lane, near Jogannavar Complex on Nargund-Saundatti Road of Nargund town, the motor vehicle being a bus bearing registration No. KA 25-F 937, belonging to the respondent No. 2 and driven by the respondent No. 1 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner from Sankdal side dashed against the said Iranna. Due to the said accident, Iranna susta...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kumara Bangarappa Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner of Detection ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(7)KarLJ87
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the appellant.2. It is the contention of the appellant that the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner passed under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation) Rules, 1977 is illegal and without jurisdiction since the said rule is omitted by amendment with effect from 21-8-1999.3. Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, an appeal is provided to the Divisional Commissioner according to Sub-section (5) of Section 45A of the Karnataka Stamp Act. It is the contention of the Counsel for the appellant that no appeal is provided against the provisional order made under Rule 6, which is now stands repealed. Therefore, the suit is filed.4. The Trial Court has held that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred and the remedy available to the party is by way of an appeal under the Stamp Act and Rules. The view taken by the Trial Court is sound and proper. The appellant has to file an appeal under Section 45A. The time spent i...
Tag this Judgment!Aeg Aktiengesllschaft Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: [2004]267ITR209(KAR); [2004]267ITR209(Karn)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. On the application made by the applicant --M/s. AEG Aktiengesllschaft (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, by means of its order dated September 15, 1994, has referred the questions of law mentioned hereinbelow as arising out of the order dated August 24, 1993, made in I. T. A. No. 791/ Bang of 1987 by it. The questions are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the engineering fees received/receivable by the assessee was in the nature of fees for technical services in accordance with the definition of 'fees for technical services' as given in Clause (4) of Article VIIIA of the amended Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between the Republic of India and the Federal Republic of Germany ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was...
Tag this Judgment!Anwar Baig @ Sardar Saheb Vs. Abdul Khadir
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1918
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner-tenant calls in question the validity and correctness of the order dated 10th September, 2003 passed by the XV Addl. Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore in H.R.C No. 10261/99 allowing the eviction Petition filed by the respondent-landlord.2. The respondent-landlord filed the petition under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act ('repealed Act' for short) urging that he requires the petition premises in order to set up his son in the business of selling poultry. It was pleaded by the respondent that his son for want of accommodation is without any avocation and he has the necessary funds to establish his son in business. The petition was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the need pleaded is not genuine and that greater hardship would be caused to him if eviction is ordered. The court-below on appreciating the rival claims found the need urged by the respondent to be real and genuine and accordingly allowed the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »