Karnataka Court March 2004 Judgments
Bhandari Metals Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2025; [2004]136STC292(Kar)
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. These two appeals arc filed under Section 16(1) of the Karnataka Entry Tax Act, 1979 ('Act' for short) against the order dated 31-01-2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone II, Bangalore in SMR/KTEG/2O-BD/2000-01/1420-2000-2001 passed in exercise of suo moto revision power under Section 15(2) of the Act, in regard to 1995-96 and 1996-97.2. The Appellant is a manufacturer of non-ferrous metal (copper/ brass) Rods and wires. The appellant purchases non-ferrous metal scrap from outside the State and causes their entry into local area for being used in the manufacture of rods and wires. For the assessment year 1995-96, the appellant filed a return disclosing the entry of non-ferrous metal scrap of the value of Rs. 1,73,93,625/- and paid entry tax at the rate of 1% under the Act in regard to the said value. In regard to assessment year 1996-97, the appellant filed a return disclosing the entry of non-ferrous metal scrap of the value of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Abraham G. Karimpanal and ors. Vs. Nil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant321; ILR2004KAR1840; 2004(4)KarLJ15
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The appellants herein being aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2003 passed in G & WC No. 61 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore, for short, 'the Family Court' have preferred this appeal under Section 47 of the Guardian & Wards Act, 1890, for short, 'the Act'.2. The Family Court by the impugned order has returned the petition filed by the appellants herein under Sections 7,10 and 26 of the Act for presentation of the same before the jurisdictional Court in the State of Tamilnadu having opined that it has no jurisdiction to entertain that petition.3. The case of the appellants, in brief, is as follows: the first and second appellants are a couple of Indian nationality and domicile. 'The appellants 1 and 2 are aged about 33 and 32 years respectively. The first appellant was born on 16.02.1970 and second appellant on 15.01.1971. The first appellant and the second appellant were married on 04.01.1996. The first appellant is em...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Anwar Since Deceased by Lrs. and ors. Vs. Sabir and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2759
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 8.1.2004 passed in W.P.. 43050/2003 wherein the learned single judge set aside the order dated 5.8.2003 passed in O.S. 11308/94 and directed the Trial Judge to accept the written statement filed by the respondents and decide the case expeditiously.2. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the respondents- defendants filed written statement 9 years after the date of service of summons in the partition suit. As per the amendment to the C.P.C.., written statement has to be filed within 90 days, and therefore, the learned single judge has erred in reversing the order of the Trial Court. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the impugned order.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the material on record.4. In the original suit, there were as many as 25 defendants. During the pendency of the suit the original plaintiff and some of the defendants died and their L.Rs. were brought on ...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Devaiah and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)KarLJ209
1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby W.P. No. 17642 of 1994, DD: 8-11-2000 filed by the appellant challenging an endorsement issued by the Registrar of Societies has been dismissed (K.P. Devaiah v. State of Karnataka). The facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petition and the present appeal may be summarised as under:Mathikere Cambridge Education Society was registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, way back in August 1979. The Society was established primarily for the purpose of running a school under the name and style of Cambridge English School at Mathikere. A decade later, the members of the Society are said to have passed a resolution on 20-9-1990 by which they resolved to dissolve the Society and transfer its assets and liabilities to Mathikere Cambridge Education Trust. This Trust was according to the appellants established under a Trust deed dated 30-11-1990 executed by four of the members of...
Tag this Judgment!H.V. Krishna Rao Vs. the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(7)KarLJ89
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The appellant herein is the owner of Site Nos. 171 and 181 totally admeasuring 14763 sq. ft. situated in Hosahalli village of Shimoga Taluk. The appellant being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Civil Court, has preferred this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), calling in question the correctness and validity of the judgment and award dated 28-2-2002 passed in L.A.C. No. 49 of 1999 as amended on 18-4-2002 in L.A. Misc. No. 33 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and CJM, Shimoga (for short, 'the Civil Court').2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows.--The Special Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga, under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, conferred occupancy rights of the acquired land on the appellant by his order dated 28-12-1978. Thereafterwards, the said land was converted for non-agricultural use and was developed into house-sites, being Site Nos. ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Zareena Taj Vs. Khurmathunnisa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant304; ILR2004KAR1631; 2004(3)KarLJ228
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This is the plaintiff's revision being aggrieved of the order dated 20-3-2003 passed in O.S. No. 87 of 1994 by the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hassan, refusing to restore the suit though ordered for restoration in Miscellaneous No. 1 of 2000.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The plaintiff Smt. Zareena Taj filed a suit against the defendants for possession before the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hassan. The suit came to be numbered as O.S. No. 87 of 1994 and made over to the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hassan. The said suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 20-9-1999. The plaintiff filed a Miscellaneous Petition under Order 9, Rule 9 of the CPC for restoration of the suit by setting aside the order of dismissal dated 20-9-1999. The said Miscellaneous Petition came to be numbered as Miscellaneous No. 1 of 2000 by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hassan. The notice sent t...
Tag this Judgment!State by Balehonnur Police Vs. Manjunatha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2198; 2004(3)KarLJ184
A.C. Kabbin, J.1. In this petition filed by the State under Section 439(2) of the Cr. P.C., anticipatory bail granted to the respondent/accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur in Cri. Mis. No. 52 of 2003 by order dated 10-3-2003 is sought to be cancelled.2. A case of rape was registered against the respondent on the basis of a complaint made by a young girl at 2.30 p.m. on 3-2-2003. It was alleged by her in the complaint that at about 8 p.m., the previous day, when she was going to the house of Nagarajagowda for the purpose of areca work, the accused/respondent, came from her backside suddenly, embraced her and committed rape on her. It was further stated by her that when she shouted, the accused ran away. She told about the incident to a friend of hers at the place of work, but since her mother was not at home, she could not tell her about the incident. The next day morning, she told about the incident to her elder brother, who took her to Balehonnur Police Stat...
Tag this Judgment!S. Murari and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Range Forest Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2272; ILR2004KAR1706; 2004(6)KarLJ115
ORDERRajendra Prasad, J. 1. All these petitions involve common questions of law and facts and common arguments are advanced by both the sides, hence they have been disposed of by common order.2. All these petitions are filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.3. Criminal petition No. 2853/2002 is for setting aside the order dated 20-7-2002 passed in F.I.R. No. 11/2001-02 by the Range Forest Officer, Kudremukh, wherein the learned Magistrate had permitted the Range Forest Officer to investigate the case against the accused for offences under Section 24 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, Section 35(6) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.4. Criminal Petition No. 2854/2002, 2855/2002 and 2859/2002 are filed for setting aside the order in F.I.R. Nos. 10/2001-02, 12/ 2001-02, 16/2001-02, respectively, passed by the Range Forest Officer, wherein the learned Magistrate had permitted the Range Forest Officer to investigate into th...
Tag this Judgment!Citibank Vs. Sudeep Singh and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC529; [2006]129CompCas478(Kar); 2004(4)KarLJ405; [2005]57SCL1(Kar)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Petitioner is a banking Company. It is before this Court aggrieved by the orders made by the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, dated 23-9-2003. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has referred the petition filed by the petitioner-Bank to the Yeshwanthpur Police Station, with a direction to enquire the matter with the respondents by issuing notice to them and submit his report returnable by 12-11-2003.2. Brief facts of the case are:It is the case of the petitioner-Bank that they have sanctioned loan facilities to the respondents herein. According to them, the respondents herein have defaulted in paying the amounts due to the petitioner-Bank. To recover the amounts due from the respondents, petitioner-Bank has approached the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, by filing a petition under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('Act 2002' for short), i...
Tag this Judgment!Veerabhadrappa Vs. Manager, State Bank of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant359; [2006]129CompCas541(Kar); 2004(5)KarLJ553
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 1589/93 on the file of the XXXI Addl. City Civil Judge at Bangalore.2. The appellant is the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the two of the withdrawals shown in the SB Account of the plaintiff maintained with the Bank dated 1-9-1992 for Rs. 24,900/- and 9-9-1992 for Rs. 100/- are not at his command, the payments made on the withdrawal slips are forged and the Bank has acted negligently in allowing the withdrawals. The suit is only for a bare declaration to the above effect. The defendant-Bank has denied the allegations made by the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed perhaps by way of abundant caution seeking consequential relief of payment of disputed amount of Rs. 25000/-. The application for amendment came to be dismissed on the ground that the proposed relief is barred by time. The dismissal order is confirmed in C.R.P. No. 297/97.3. The trial Cour...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »