Karnataka Court July 2004 Judgments
Ponds (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC556(Kar)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. These revision petitions are filed against the orders passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on October 10, 1995 in S.T.A. Nos. 279 and 280 of 1995. The Tribunal has confirmed the orders passed by the first appellate authority and the assessing authority, who by their orders had concluded that, the petitioner before this Court is the first dealer in the State and that therefore its sales turnover is exigible to tax in view of the proviso to Section 5(3)(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the K.S.T. Act', for short).2. M/s. Ponds (India) limited, petitioner in these revision petitions, is a limited company and a dealer trading in cosmetics, soaps, shampoos and other toiletries. It has got its manufacturing unit in places like Madras and other places outside the State. It also gets certain items of cosmetics manufactured in Karnataka and effects sales thereof within the State and also effects inter-State sales. In the annual returns filed before the asses...
Tag this Judgment!The Hanuman Transport Company Private Limited Vs. the Regional Transpo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant432; ILR2004KAR3352; 2004(7)KarLJ328
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally.2. The 3rd respondent filed an application before the 2nd respondent for grant of temporary permit to run a stage carriage from Kundapura to Dharmasthala for a period of 4 months from 1-4- 2004 to 31-7-2004. The application filed by the 3rd respondent is produced as Annexure-A to the Writ Petition. In column No. 4, it is mentioned that the permit is required to provide transport facilities to the travelling public. Based on the said application, the 2nd respondent passed the order on 30-3-2004, the same is produced as Annexure-B to the Writ Petition. As per Annexure - C, permit was issued along with the timings on 15-3-2004. The petitioner, who is also running stage carriage permit in a portion of the route in question, requested the respondents to grant a certified copy of the order passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, and that t...
Tag this Judgment!Nathappa, Since Deceased by L.Rs Vs. Venkatarayappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3666; 2004(5)KarLJ299
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. Learned HCGP is directed to take notice on behalf of respondents-2 and 3.2. The petitioners have called in question the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 399/2003 dated 21.1.2004 whereby the Tribunal allowed the Appeal filed by them while setting aside the order passed by the respondent No. 3 dated 21.1.2003.3. One Nathappa, father of the petitioners, filed an application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 58 of Nalamachanahalli, Chintamani, measuring 2 acres 26 guntas of land. The Land Tribunal, Chintamani, by its order dated 3.10.1979 granted occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre of land out of 2 acres 26 guntas in the said survey number.4. It is not in dispute that the said Nathappa had not challenged the said order of the Land Tribunal in not granting occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre and 26 guntas. The legal representatives of the said Nathappa made an application in Form No. 7A for grant of...
Tag this Judgment!Chandu Vs. State by Kunchawaram Police Station
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4062; 2004(5)KarLJ105
Manjula Chellur, J.1. The appellant herein is the first accused who was convicted by the Trial Court It is not in dispute that two other accused-A2 and A3 were acquitted of the charges. Though an appeal was preferred by the State challenging the said acquittal, at the stage of admission itself, the appeal was dismissed. Therefore, we have to now concentrate only with regard to appellant-accused 1.2. It is not in dispute that, appellant and complainant-Pandu are all from the same Village Bikkunaik Tanda in Kunchawaram Police Station limits in Gulbarga District. The case of the prosecution unfolded before the Trial Court is as under:One Ramsingh had brothers and also sons in the said Tanda. P.Ws. 1 and 10 are the sons of Ramsingh, P.W. 8-Sitaramsingh is the brother of said Ramsingh. The family owned landed property, and we are now concerned with one of the properties i.e., Survey No. 85. Mr. Sitaram Singh got share of a portion in Survey No. 85. Certain portion of said survey number went...
Tag this Judgment!B. Sankappa Rai and ors. Vs. Central Registrar of Co-operative Societi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4298; 2004(7)KarLJ330
ORDERGopala Gowda, J.1. These petitions are heard together with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 47473/02 is seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 19.12.2002 rejecting his nomination to contest in the election to the Board of Directors of the 3rd respondent's society (hereinafter called the Society in short); for quashing the calendar of events issued by the 2nd respondent for holding the General Body Meeting of the 3rd respondent and election to the Board of Directors of the Society held on 30.12.2002 and further sought for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order at Annexure -B dated 10.5.1999 by which amendment in made to Clause No. 12(a)(3)(d) of the Bye Laws in respect of 'C' Class shares of 3rd respondent.3. In W.Ps. 764-765/03, the petitioners, in addition to the aforesaid prayers, have further sought for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Returning Officer and the Society to hold ...
Tag this Judgment!Bashu Saheb and anr. Vs. Veeranagouda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)KarLJ535
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The appellants were the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and first respondent was the defendant in the suit before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the Trial Court.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from constructing his house within the area of 20' on the Northern side of their houses. According to the plaintiffs, there is a road of 20' width on the Northern, side of their properties and the plaintiffs were using the same since a long time. Since the defendant started construction on the said road by leaving only 4', the suit was filed against the defendant. The defendant resisted the suit. In the written statement filed, the defendant denied the plaint averments and questioned the locus standi of the plaintiffs to file the suit. Denying the encroachment alleged by the plaintiffs, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the pleadings the Trial ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›