Karnataka Court September 2004 Judgments
Junjamma and ors. Vs. the Bangalore Development Authority, Rep. by Its ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR608; 2004(7)KarLJ677
ORDERN. Kumar, J 1. In all the above Writ Petitioners have challenged the acquisition of their lands by the Bangalore Development Authority for the formation of Visweshwaraiah Layout. As common questions of law and facts do arise for consideration in all these Writ Petitions, they are clubbed and heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners in all these petitions could be broadly classified as under:-(a) The owners of lands who are either cultivating the land personally or who have put up constructions on the said lands and using them either for residential purposes, non-residential purposes or industrial purposes.(b) The owners of sites; (i) Who have purchased sites in agricultural lands.(ii) Who have purchased sites in layouts which are not approved and formed in agricultural lands.(iii) Who have purchased sites in layouts which are formed after conversion and after obtaining the necessary permission/sanction from the local authorities.(iv) Who have purchase...
Tag this Judgment!Satappa and anr. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)KarLJ557
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioners, Annappa Narasgond and Venkappa Narasgond are brothers. Smt. Susheelavva is the wife of deceased Annappa Narasgond and sister of respondents 4 and 5. After the death of Annappa Narasgond, the names of petitioners and Smt. Susheelavva were mutated vide M.E. No. 9405. According to the petitioners, Smt. Susheelavva under a Will dated 14-9-2001 bequeathed the properties mentioned in the writ petition in favour of respondents 4 and 5. After the death of Smt. Susheelavva, respondents 4 and 5 sought mutation of their names and the same was sanctioned vide M.E. No. 10865 under Annexure-A. The appeal preferred against the same was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner under Annexure-B, dated 5-2-2004. Revision petition filed thereon was also rejected under Annexure-C, dated 29-4-2004 observing to approach the competent Civil Court. Petitioners are seeking to quash Annexures-A, B and C and a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to enter their names in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Veranna Veerabhadrappa Vs. the District Registrar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant27; ILR2004KAR4699; 2004(7)KarLJ646
A.M. Farooq, J. 1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O S No. 486'of 1997 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (JD), Hubli dismissing the suit and it is directed against the confirming judgment and decree in R A No. 17 of 1999 on the file of the learned Prl. Civil Judge (SD), Hubli dismissing the appeal.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant - plaintiff agreed to purchase land bearing Sy. No. 270/ 1+2+3 measuring 7 acres situated at Gokul, Hubli from one Basappa Unakal and Hanamant Unakal for Rs. 1,61,000/- and entered into an agreement of sale dated 23.7.1985. Since the vendors allegedly did not execute the sale deed as per the agreement, the appellant - plaintiff filed O. S No. 148/86 before the Trial Court for specific performance of the agreement. The suit was decreed on 27.2.1990. Against the said decree an appeal was filed by the owner - vendor which was dismissed. To execute the decree, the appellant filed Execution Petition No. 585/94 before...
Tag this Judgment!D. Sudhakar and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4904; 2004(7)KarLJ611
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. In all these matters, since identical questions of fact and law are involved all these petitions are clubbed together and a common order is passed.2. The petitioners in all these petitions, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Notification dated 19th June 2004 in Proceedings No. FD 17 EDC.2004 on the file of the first respondent - State Government, have presented the instant Writ Petitions.3. The facts of the case are that, all these petitioners claim to be the holders of licence for right of retail vend of arrack for the excise year 2003-04 being the highest bidders, and claim to be carrying on their business as per the terms and conditions of the contract in their respective Taluks and Districts. The disposal of the right of retail vend of arrack is regulated by the provisions of the Karnataka Excise (lease of Right of Retail Vend of Liquor) Rules, 1969 ('Lease Rules' for short) and under Section 17 of the Karnataka Excise Act ('Act' for brevity...
Tag this Judgment!Dundegowda and ors. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR5068; 2004(7)KarLJ638
R. Gururajan, J.1. These appeals are filed against the order passed by the learned appellate Judge in MA No.78 and 79/1991, in so far as the finding of the learned Judge to the effect that the appellants are not entitled to get compensation of more than Rs. 20,000/- per acre.2. Facts in brief are as under;Appellants in MSA No. 68/2001 are the owners of the two acres and 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.89 of Anehosahalli, Kanakapura Taluk and appellants in MSA No. 69/2001 are the owners of 1 acre 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.91 of Avaremala village, Kanakapura Taluk. These lands were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of construction of water reservoir tank by the Irrigation Department. Due to inadequate compensation given by the Land Acquisition officer, the appellants filed an appeal. The appellate Court fixed the amount of compensation at Rs. 8,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants approached this Court and this Court remanded the case back to the app...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Parvatevva and ors. Vs. Shivayya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4925; 2004(7)KarLJ642
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The 1st petitioner claiming to be wife of respondent and petitioners 2 and 3 Claiming to be the daughters of respondent, filed Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 40/95 before the Trial Court and prayed for maintenance of Rs. 500/- each under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court, on hearing both the parties, ordered that the petitioners 2 and 3 herein are entitled to Rs. 100/- each per month and 1st petitioner is entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs. 300/- from the respondent from the date of the petition. The said order of granting maintenance was challenged before the Sessions Court, Bagalkot, by filing Criminal Revision Petition No. 21/2002 by the husband-respondent herein. The Sessions Court set aside the order of grant of maintenance in favour of 1st petitioner herein and confirmed the order of awarding maintenance of Rs. 100/- per month to petitioners 2 and 3 herein. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Sessions Court refusing for g...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganatha Industries Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST240(Karn)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In this appeal filed under Section 16 of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dated June 27, 1994, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga.2. The facts in brief can be stated as hereunder:The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a proprietary concern and is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act and it is engaged in the activity of extracting oil from rice bran. During the years 1987-88 and 1988-89, the assessee caused entry of rice bran into the Raichur local area from outside. The assessing authority by means of its order dated May 29, 1991, granted exemption from the payment of tax under the Act on the entry of rice bran brought into the local area by the assessee taking the view that the same did not constitute raw material for the purpose of entry 16...
Tag this Judgment!Shakunthala Vs. Akhila Bharatha Billawara Union and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4709; 2004(6)KarLJ93
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Petitioner was working as a Lecturer in Political Science in the college run by the respondents herein. She was terminated from her service by the respondents-College Authorities on 2-7-1992. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents-College Authorities, the petitioner was before the Educational Appellate Tribunal (I Additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore) in EAT.MA. No. 50 of 1992. The learned appellate Judge, after detailed consideration of the facts and the law pleaded by both the parties, had allowed the appeal and had directed the respondents-College Authorities to reinstate the appellant before him as a Lecturer in Political Science and to pay salary to her from 1-6-1992. The order made by the learned District Judge reads as under.--'The appeal is allowed.The order of termination of the appellant dated 10-6-1992 is set aside.The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant as Lecturer in Political Science and to pay salary to her from...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganatha Industries (Since Dissolved) Rep. by Its Ex-proprietor Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1054
Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In this appeal filed under Section 16 of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dated 27th June 1994, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga.2. The facts in brief can be stated as hereunder:The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a proprietary concern and is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act and it is engaged in the activity of extracting oil from rice bran. During the year 1987-88 and 1988-89, the assessee caused entry of rice bran into the Raichur local area from outside. The assessing authority by means of its order dated 29th May 1991, granted exemption from the payment of tax under the Act on the entry of rice bran brought into the local area by the assessee taking the view that the same did not constitute raw material for the purpose of Entry 16-B...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Mahajan Vs. Kaindi India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4766; [2005]60SCL548(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This petition is presented under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, the Act), praying for passing a winding up order in respect of the respondent company on the premise that the company is unable to pay its admitted debts, which, according to the petitioner, includes arrears of salary to the tune of Rs. 85,613/- a sum of Rs. 75,000/- payable in lieu of three months notice period, and interest on those amounts.2. Notice was issued to the respondent company. Respondent company has entered appearance through Counsel and objections have also been filed. Petition is sought to be contested on the premise that the petitioner was not even an employee in terms of any appointment order issued by the respondent company etc.3. It is not necessary for this Court to examine this dispute, as the materials placed before the Court by the petitioner prima facie indicate that the petitioner had been rendering services to the respondent company; that the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »