Karnataka Court November 2005 Judgments

Associated Cement Companies Limited Vs. the State of Karnataka Represe ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1446; (2008)11VST811(Karn)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. The assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and also a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (KTEG Act' for short). It is engaged in the activity of manufacture and sale of cement in the State of Karnataka.2. The State Government, after considering the proposal of the petitioner company for expansion of its cement plant at Wadi, Gulbarga District, has issued Government Order No. CI22 SPI97, dated 26-2-1997, granting certain incentives and concessions, and one such incentive was concessions of tax payable under the provisions of the Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act. The incentive so provided is as under:INCENTIVES AND CONCESSIONS: The Company is sanctioned the following incentives and concessions:(a) 100% exemption of Sales Tax (KST and CST) on the sale of finished goods for a period of 9 (nine) years, or, deferment of sales tax on sale of finished goods ...

Smt. Saraswatidevi Vs. Town Municipal Council

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(4)KarLJ586

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner having put up a construction of a building on a piece of land owned by her, after securing necessary sanction from the respondent-Council, under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, was issued with a notice dated 16-7-2004, Annexure-H, by the respondent, calling upon her to demolish the building within 7 days, on the ground that the construction was on a public park. Hence this petition.2. Indisputably, the impugned notice calls upon the petitioner to demolish the building, which cannot be termed a 'notice' but is an order directing demolition of the construction erected by the petitioner. The petitioner undoubtedly was not issued with a notice of the proceedings and the order passed by the Lokayukta nor extended an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to have her say in the matter.3. At this stage learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the authority would extend an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter take ac...

The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and anr. Vs. State o ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR318; 2006(1)KarLJ1

N. Kumar, J.1. The appellants-Bangalore Development Authority (for short, 'the BDA'), the State of Karnataka, the former Chief Minister Sri S.'M. Krishna and two others have challenged in this batch of eight writ appeals the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the acquisition proceedings pertaining to 'ARKAVATHI LAYOUT' as well as the declaration made to the effect that the BDA has no jurisdiction to frame developmental schemes in Bangalore Metropolitan Area and against other reliefs granted in the writ petitions. Some writ petitions have also been filed challenging the acquisition of land for the formation of the 'Arkavathi Layout' on the grounds, which have been upheld by the learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment under appeal. Since identical questions of law and fact arise for consideration in the writ appeals and the writ petitions they are taken up for consideration together and are being disposed of by this common order. The facts leading to the present proceeding...

High Range Coffee Curing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)6VST695(Karn)

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are dealers under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') and claim to be carrying on the activities which can be described as 'coffee curing industry' within the meaning of this phrase as it occurs in Government Order No. CI 30 SPC 96, dated May 14, 1999 in which notification, coffee curing industries figure at Sl. No. 7 of the category of non-manufacturing service sector industries included in the appendix IV of Government Order No. CI 30 SPC 96, dated April 1, 1996.2. The said Government Order dated April 1,1996 in itself is a notification indicating the State Industrial Policy - incentive package vide Government Order No. CI 30 SPC 96, dated March 15, 1996.3. The petitioners have approached this Court time and again for the tax benefits that they can avail for claiming as exemption or avoiding payment or the tax liability, which in the understanding of the petitioners, is...

R. Jayaraman and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ226

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Jayaraman and 20 others are before me seeking for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 6-10-2003, Annexure-C passed by the 3rd respondent. They want a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioners to appear for the C.P.Ed. examination scheduled to be conducted as per the notification dated 20-9-2005 and to declare the results.2. The petitioners are the students of C.P.Ed. courses having joined and admitted to the said course in the academic year 2002-03 in the month of June 2002 at Divya C.P.Ed. College, Sadashivanagar, Tumkur. Admissions of the petitioners were approved by the respondents. The course is for one year. The petitioners say that the theory examination consists of 5 papers. Theory examination commenced on 19-5-2003 and ended on 23-5-2003. All the petitioners have taken theory examination. They appeared in written examination i.e., Papers I to IV which were conducted between 19-5-2003 and 22-5-2003. The petitioners have performed a...

K. Krishna and anr. Vs. Venkatagiriyappa Since Dead by Lrs. and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR523; 2006(3)KarLJ283

ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. This is landlord's revision petition filed under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (in short 'the Rent Act') challenging the order dated 20-8-2005 passed on I.A. No. III filed by the L.Rs., of the tenant under Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, in HRC No. 299/2003 on the file of the II Additional Small Causes Judge at Bangalore City.2. The Petitioners/landlords are represented by Sri A.V. Gangadharappa. The Respondents/L.Rs of the tenant are represented by Sri. V. Vishwanath.3. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard arguments for final disposal.4. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the revision petition may be stated as under:The Petitioners filed an eviction petition against the original tenant Venkatagiriyappa under Section 27(2)(e)(h) of the Rent Act, which came to be registered in HRC 299/2003 on the file of the Additional Small Causes at Bangalore City. The tenant entered appearance and filed o...

Anthappa (Deceased) by His Testamentary L.Rs Vs. Distinappa Alias Subb ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2006Kant60; ILR2006KAR1576; 2006(1)KarLJ270

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Hassan in R.A. No. 22 of 1995 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Holenarasipura in O.S. No. 56 of 1991.2. The parties are referred according to their rank before the Trial Court. Plaintiff filed a suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Holenarasipura seeking for declaration to declare him as the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule properties stating that it is his self-acquired properties and also sought for a permanent injunction. The said suit was resisted by the respondent/defendant on the ground that though they belong to Roman Catholic Christians, customarily they were bound by the principles of Hindu Law in the matters of succession. Further, it is alleged that all the suit schedule properties are ancestral and coparcenary in nature and defendant was one of the co-owner...

Maddurappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioners are persons in whose favour an extent of 4 acres of agricultural land each in Sy. Nos. 92/2, 92/1 and 92/3 of Meesiganahalli in Kundana Hobli, Bangalore Rural District had been granted free of cost as persons belonging to Scheduled Caste Community in terms of a grant order dated 30-4-1963. Each of the petitioners had sold such lands within a couple of years though in terms of the grant order it had conditioned that the petitioners cannot part with the granted lands for periods ranging from 10 to 15 years.2. The contesting respondents in these petitions viz., respondents 3, 4 and 5 in W.P. No. 1916 of 2005, respondents 3 and 4 in W.P. Nos. 1917 of 2005 and 1918 of 2005 who were the latest purchasers in a series of transactions and who were in possession of the respective lands in question, had been put on notice by the Assistant Commissioner in the year 1998-1999 at the instance of the petitioners who had moved the Assistant Commissioner for i...

impact Polytechnic and ors. Vs. All India Council for Technical Educat ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR548; 2006(1)KarLJ396

ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In W.P. No. 16315 of 2005-1st petitioner is an educational institution by name 'Impact Polytechnic' (for short 'Institution'), imparting education in Diploma Courses. Petitioners 2 to 11 are the students admitted by the 1st petitioner for the study of Diploma Courses in Civil Engineering and Machine Tools Technology for the academic year 2005-2006. In W.P. No. 24301 of 2005 and W.P. No. 24550 of 2005 the petitioners are the students admitted by Institution for the aforesaid two courses for the academic year 2005-2006. Initially, the Institution had alone filed W.P. No. 16315 of 2005. Some of the students admitted by the Institution to the aforesaid two courses for the academic year 2005-2006 filed the other two writ petitions. Later on, the students admitted by the Institution have been impleaded as petitioners 2 to 11 in W.P. No. 16315 of 2005.2. In W.P. No. 16315 of 2005, it is contended that with effect from the academic year 1986-87 the Institution has be...

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dyaneshwar Laxman Chellikeri an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(2006)ACC563; 2006ACJ1185; 2006(1)KarLJ499

V. Jagannathan, J.1. In this appeal, the Oriental Insurance Company has assailed the legality of the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saundatti ('the Tribunal' for short) granting a compensation of Rs. 6,30,000/- to the claimant.2. 2nd respondent-claimant filed a petition under Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short), claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that had taken place on 30th April, 1994 and it was his case before the Tribunal that the jeep bearing No. KA-23/M-2015 was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the 1st respondent-driver and due to the said fact the vehicle lost control and dashed to a pole on the left side of the road. The claimant sustained claimant sustained injuries in the accident and he suffered disability to the extent of 90 per cent and hence he claimed Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation.3. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties and after appreciation o...