Karnataka Court January 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Deccan Asian Infrastructure (Mauritius) Inc. Vs. Bpl Communications Li ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR450(Kar); 2005(3)KarLJ143
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-company is incorporated under the laws of Mauritius. In November 1997, the appellant-company and the first respondent-a Company incorporated in India along with other Companies including respondents 2 to 8 executed a shareholders agreement dated 5-11-1997 at Hongkong for the objects and performance of obligations contained therein. The said agreement contained an arbitration Clause which provided for arbitration to be held in London, United Kingdom in accordance with International Chamber of Commerce Rules. The original shareholders agreement dated 30-4-1997 was executed by the parties in Hongkong and the amended and restated shareholders agreement dated 5-11-1997 was executed in London. There is a dispute as to whether the shareholders agreement or the amended and restated shareholders agreement was executed in...
Balu Rama Patil Vs. Ramesh Shankar Rao and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC609; 2006ACJ1386; [2005(106)FLR168]; ILR2005KAR1241; 2005(2)KarLJ302; (2005)IILLJ820Kant
B.S. Patil, J. 1. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the parties, the same is taken up for final hearing.2. This appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The claim application filed by the applicant was rejected by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner holding that the injured driver of the Car is not entitled for compensation as he does not fall within the definition of the term 'workman' as defined under Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').3. Brief facts which are essential for the disposal of the case are as under.That the appellant who was working as a Driver of the Ambassador Car bearing registration No. GA-01-A-5762, belonging to Respondent No. 1 met with an accident on 29-06-1999. It is contended that while he was driving the said vehicle, it dashed against a truck bearing registration No. KA 22-A-28. He further contended that the accident occurred while he wa...
Bpl Soft Energy Systems Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: [2005]142STC217(Kar)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. These petitions are filed against the orders passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in STA No. 571 of 2001 and STA Nos. 709, 329 and 330 of 2003 dated January 23, 2004. These petitions relate to the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively.3. The facts stated by the petitioner are :The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is also a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of dry manganese dioxide batteries (DMD batteries). It has its manufacturing unit at Somana-halli, Maddur Taluk, which falls under Zone-II of the notification issued by the State Government. A reference to the ...
Dhanpal Vs. State of Karnataka, Finance Department and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR919; (2008)11VST607(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of vehicle bearing registration No KA-5 D 1333. It is the case of the petitioner that this vehicle was carrying goods namely latex from Cochin, Kerala State to Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh and the goods was being carried on behalf of transporters M/s Roshan Freight Carriers (Kanpur), which had an office at Cochin and which had hired the vehicle of the petitioner for such purpose.2. The vehicle was to pass through the State of Karnataka and though by such passing of vehicle through the State of Karnataka with its goods, it was not liable to pay any tax in the State of Karnataka, particularly under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 [for short, the Act], the vehicle nevertheless will be subject to checking at the entry point when it enters the State of Karnataka and at that stage the vehicle will be issued with a transit pass, which the person in-charge of the vehicle is required to surrender at the exit po...
Appasaheb Tatyasaheb Ugare and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ104
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Appasaheb Tatyasaheb Ugare and Annasaheb Tatyasaheb Ugare are before me challenging the order dated 30-4-2004 at Annexure-A issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi, Belgaum District. Petitioner is also seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-B, the order dated 23-2-2004 passed by the third respondent-Tahsildar, Chikodi.2. Facts in brief are as under:Fourth respondent and his brother are joint owners of the lands. There is no division by metes and bounds in respect of the suit lands. Fourth respondent was working in Army. He retired in 1970. He filed a resumption application. It was dismissed. In 1984, 4th respondent filed an application seeking resumption of lands. Third respondent-Tahsildar rejected the same in terms of the order dated 25-3-1989. Fourth respondent filed as appeal before the second respondent. Second respondent allowed the appeal. He directed the third respondent to take an action under Section 15 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, ...
Prakash and ors. Vs. the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2010; 2005(2)KarLJ95
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The first petitioner is the Adhyaksha, second petitioner is Upadhyaksha and other petitioners are nominated members of Town Municipal Council, Mudhol. In these writ petitions they are seeking to quash the impugned notice at Annexure-D, dated 30-12-2004 calling for meeting of no-confidence motion against first and second petitioners.2. Another elected member has filed application to implead him as 2nd respondent on the ground that he was one of the signatories for the requisition petition to move no-confidence motion against petitioners 1 and 2. Since he is a necessary and proper party, the application is allowed and the applicant is permitted to come on record as 2nd respondent.3. Mr. I.G. Gachchinamath, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned notice is bad in law as it is the second no-confidence motion moved within a period of one year from the earlier move made on 12-10-2004 as per Annexure-A. Secondly, it is contended that as is evid...
Doddaiah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ168
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. The writ petitioner, in O.A. No. 597 of 2003 filed by him before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore (for short, 'the Tribunal'), sought for the pay scale admissible to the post of Laboratory Assistant in the Geological Survey of India. The petitioner is working as Laboratory Assistant, Central Ground Water Board, categorised as 'Other Scientific Staff. It was contended before the Tribunal that the nature of work, duties and responsibilities, qualification for recruitment for both the posts are similar and, therefore, by virtue of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' he is entitled to the pay scale admissible to the post of Laboratory Assistant in the Geological Survey of India. The Tribunal having taken note of the fact that a similar claim was already considered and rejected by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in L.C. Thyagi v. Union of India, O.A. No. 1228 of 1999, dated 23-2-2001, a copy of which is produced at page 97 of t...
Krishna Gajanana Vedeshwar and ors. Vs. Narayan Gajanan Vedeshwar and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant229; 2005(2)KarLJ237
R. Gururajan, J.1. This is one more case reflecting the slow movement of wheels of justice in Civil Courts. The suit of 1954 ended in a decree and execution of 1971 ended in compromise. Compromise is challenged by subsequent suits before Trial Court as well as Appellate Court and ultimately in this Court.2. The defendants/appellants are before me challenging the order of the learned Trial Judge passed in O.S. No. 7 of 1992 and O.S. No. 5 of 1993 confirmed in Appeal Nos. R.A. Nos. 87 of 2002 and 6 of 1998, dated 19-12-2002 and 28-2-1998 respectively. Parties would be referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.3. Facts are as under:Plaintiff Ganesh Subraya Bhat filed a suit seeking for injunction restraining the defendant/appellants from interfering with the alleged act of performing pooja in the temples of Shree Mahaganapati and Shree Mahabaleshwar at Gokarn. One Sri Subbaraya Appu Bhat uncle of 1st respondent-Ganesh Subraya Bhat filed a suit in O.S. No. 238 of 1954 on the ...
Alliance Business Academy, Rep. by Its Director Vs. Dr. H. Jayaram Red ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR450; 2005(2)KarLJ17
S.R. Nayak, J.1. All these appeals are directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 28th May, 2003 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 39079 and 39344 of 2002. Writ Appeal Nos. 5211-5212 of 2003 are preferred by M/s. Alliance Business Academy 4th respondent in the Writ Petitions. Writ Appeal Nos. 4980 and 5596 of 2003 are preferred by Sri Gundappa B Angoor, 3rd respondent in the Writ Petitions. Writ Appeal Nos. 5488 and 5489 of 2003 are preferred by M/s. H. Jayaram Reddy and Vinod Kumar Bansal who are the writ petitioners. Inasmuch as the questions of law and that of facts arising for decision in these writ appeals are common and since all the writ appeals are directed against the same common judgment of the learned Single Judge, all these writ appeals are clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petitions. The petitioners in Writ ...
Gammon India Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR860; [2005]141STC321(Kar)
H.L. Dattu, J.1. The appellant is a works contractor engaged in the construction of Civil Structures including design and construction of cooling towers, dams, etc. The appellant is also a dealer registered under the provisions of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter for short referred to as Act, 1957') , and liable to be assessed to tax under Section 5-B of the Act. The appellant is borne on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Asst), Raichur, (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessing authority').2. During the assessment year 1993-1994, the appellant had executed works contract of construction of dams and design and construction of Natural Draught Cooling Towers and had applied for the benefit under the composition scheme viz.,-Section 17(6) of the Act. During the assessment year, the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 8,76,42,253-00 towards construction of dams and a sum of Rs. 1,04,37,262-00 towards design and construction of Natural Draught Cooling Towers...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »