Karnataka Court January 2005 Judgments
Ammanamma and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2341; ILR2005KAR1029; 2005(2)KarLJ279
S.B. Majage, J. 1. The question referred to the Bench is:'Whether in cases where appeal against conviction if filed and appeal against enhancement is also filed, the Bench considering the same is required to dispose of the same simultaneously and together; and if such procedure is not followed, what is its effect and remedy available to the aggrieved party?'2. The facts, giving rise to the said question and the reason for reference are;The Court of 25th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, by its order dated 25.6.2001, has convicted 5 accused in S.C. No. 40/1991 and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 3 years for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 149 of IPC and sentenced the accused Nos. 2 to undergo imprisonment for life whereas, sentenced accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. Challenging their conviction, accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 have filed Cr.A. No. 829/ 2001 whereas, accused No. 2 has fil...
Tag this Judgment!S.L.V. Constructions Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer, Department of Fin ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1146; [2006]144STC563(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. Writ Petitioner who claims to be a dealer engaged in the business of execution works contract and based at Tirupathi town in the State of Andra Pradesh and that he is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Andra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, has approached this Court seeking for relief for quashing the endorsements dated 14-1-2005 in respect of two goods transport vehicles bearing Nos. KA 21/4674 and KA-O1 B 9248, which were hired by the petitioner for transporting what is known as 'bitumen' a byproduct in processing of petroleum which the petitioner claims to have purchased from M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., at Mangalore and is intended for transportation to Tirupathi.2. The endorsements in respect of the two vehicles and the goods in them is in the nature of a prohibitory order passed on the person incharge of the vehicles for detaining the vehicles at the sales tax check post at Kannur, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, issued by th...
Tag this Judgment!Gulbarga University Vs. Mallikarjun S. Kodagali and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR69(Kar); ILR2005KAR1071; 2005(2)KarLJ298
B.S. Patil, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant Gulbarga University is challenging the order passed by the Court below dismissing the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. Though this matter is listed for orders today, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have taken up this matter for final hearing.2. The proceedings before the Court below were initiated by the appellant herein seeking to set aside the award passed by the arbitrator, the second respondent herein who has held, that the appellant herein was required to pay certain sum of money, to the respondent No. l contractor as against the work executed by him. The twin contentions raised by the appellant before the Court below stating that there was no arbitration clause in the agreement entered into between the parties and that there was no dispute that was arbitrable consequently no award in the eye of law was passed by th...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka, by Its Principal Secretary to Government, Dept. Fi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1397; 2005(2)KarLJ503
H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. The Government of Karnataka vide notification dated 1.4.2003 bearing No. FD 20 PES 2002 amended the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') by inserting Sub-rule (2) of Rule 14,14A and 14B and amendment of Form CL-A and insertion of new Forum ACT-CL-1. The subject matter in this lis is insertion of Sub-Rule(2) of Rule 14 of the Rules, under which the CL-2 and CL-9 licensees shall lift for sale, a minimum quantity of liquor per month. The CL-2 and CL-9 licensees being aggrieved by this impugned notification questioned the same in W.P. Nos. 20614-20624/2003 and connected matters. The learned Single Judge of this Court by a common Order dated 18.7.2003 allowed the Writ Petitions and quashed the impugned notification and remitted the matter for reconsideration. Hence, these appeals by the Government of Karnataka (referred to as 'State').2. Sri B. Anand, learned Government Advocate for appellants contends...
Tag this Judgment!Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2210; [2006]144STC59(Kar)
H.L. Dattu, J.1. The appellant is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and supply of Automated Teller Machines (ATM's for short). In view of the configuration and for the purpose for which is put to use, the appellant company is of the view that the sale of ATM's is eligible to single point levy of tax under Sec 5(3)(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'Act, 1957'). However, in order to have the views of the department in this regard, in particular, the Advance Ruling Authority constituted by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in exercise of his powers under Section 4 of the Act, the appellant company had filed an application before the Advance Ruling Authority in Form 54 as provided under Rule 27-E (1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 ('Rules' for short), seeking clarification on the rate of tax applicable under the Act on sale of Automated Teller Machines.2. In response to the notice of the hearing issued ...
Tag this Judgment!Manjula V. Gadagoli Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR873]; ILR2005KAR2679
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. By the impugned order dated 3.5.2003, the Government has refused to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner herein to the Labour Court for adjudication on the ground that the petitioner has raised the dispute belatedly.2. According to the petitioner, she was working as an Literate Assistant on daily wages from 30.1.1986 to 13.3.1987 in the office of the 3rd respondent. According to her, she was terminated from services with effect from 13.3.1987. She raised the dispute on 12.11.2002. The State Government by the impugned order, refused to refer the dispute for adjudication to Labour Court on the ground that the dispute is raised by the petitioner belatedly.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the decision of the Divisional Bench of this Court in the case of Mypower Mazdoor Welfare Union v. The Secretary and Commissioner and Anr., (ILR 1997 KAR 2071) submitted that the Government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon ...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Shetty and anr. Vs. Karnataka Industrial Investment and Developme ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: [2005]126CompCas145(Kar)
1. This miscellaneous first appeal preferred under Section 32(9) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act'), is directed against the order dated January 3, 2004, passed in Misc. P. No. 25 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Sixth Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore.2. The respondent herein had filed miscellaneous petition under Section 31(1)(aa) of the Act for enforcement of liability against the appellant along with two other alleged guarantors. The respondent had further sought for a direction to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 18,40,000 along with interest. The said miscellaneous case came to be decreed by means of an order dated November 24, 2001, by the Sixth Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The appellant herein filed M. F. A. No. 1146 of 2002 and M. F. A. No. 1293 of 2003 in this court calling in question the order dated November 24, 2001, passed by the court below on the ground that no notice was issued to the appellants herein and ...
Tag this Judgment!Reserve Bank of India Vs. P.O., Central Government Industrial Tribunal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ14Kant
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner Reserve Bank is before me challenging the award, dated January 28, 1999 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in C.R. No. 71 of 1991.2. Second respondent workman was appointed as sweeper on March 10, 1971. He was transferred as Farash with effect from December 5, 1978. He was absenting from work without prior sanction and was not submitting leave applications in advance. On account of his irregular attendance management according to the petitioner was constrained to initiate a departmental enquiry. An enquiry was held. Enquiry officer concluded his enquiry vide his report, dated October 26, 1988, Enquiry Officer held that the workman was guilty of the charges. The competent authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and ordered dismissal in terms of an order of dismissal, dated December 16, 1989. This dismissal order was subjected before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labor Court in terms of a dispute. Partie...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited and anr. Vs. G. Harischandra Reddy a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ409
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. This miscellaneous first appeal preferred by Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the 'Act') is directed against the Order dated 15-12-2001 passed in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2001 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur, dismissing the petition filed under Section 34(2)(a)(v) of the Act, of the appellant, to set aside the award dated 25-6-2000, published on 14-11-2000, of the sole Arbitrator.2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal, are.--For the purpose of brevity, the appellant is referred to as 'KBJNL' and the 1st respondent as the 'claimant', while the 2nd respondent as the 'Arbitrator'.3. By an agreement bearing No. 41 of 1993, dated 27-11-1993, entered into between KBJNL and the claimant, a Civil Contractor, work of construction of headwork under Mulawad Lift Irrigation Scheme from Almatti reservoir near Bluti, estimated to cost of Rs. 6,...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Office ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Kar)360; [2005]275ITR227(KAR); [2005]275ITR227(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. These writ petitions by the insurance company is for quashing the notice issued under Section 226(3) of the IT Act to the banker of the petitioner-company with which the accounts of the petitioner is maintained for the payment of amount notified in the demand notice in favour of the IT Department.2. The notice is sought to be quashed on the premise that the amount mentioned in the notice is the subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal in an appeal pending before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has declined to grant stay in favour of the petitioner in respect of the liability, the subject-matter of appeal during the pendency of the appeal, and even during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent IT Department has resorted to coercive recovery proceedings.3. Sri M.V. Javali, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal is the legality of levy of penalty on the petitioner for not having deducted ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »