Karnataka Court May 2005 Judgments
K.T. Rajashekar and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2725; 2006(3)KarLJ215
N.K. Sodhi, C.J.1. This order will dispose of a bunch of writ appeals (writ appeals Nos. 2327-28, 2329, 3376, 4331, 5550 of 1999) and writ petition No. 28589-615 of 1999 in which common questions of law and fact arise. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the decision in writ appeal No. 3376 of 1999 will govern the other cases as well. Writ petition 28589-615 of 1999 came up for hearing before a learned single Judge and when he was informed that the issues involved therein were pending in these writ appeals the same was referred to be heard along with these cases.2. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from writ appeal No. 3376 of 1999.3. The short question that arises for consideration in writ appeal No. 3376 and other cases is whether the action of the respondents in levying higher rate of tax under the Karnataka Motor vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Taxation Act') in respect of private service vehicles registered in the name of Bharath Earth Move...
Tag this Judgment!Mass Traders (P) Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Kar)295; ILR2005KAR5351; [2005]277ITR294(KAR); [2005]277ITR294(Karn)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. These petitions are directed against the orders at Annex. G in No. AA/Bng/ 5(35)7/89-90/1993, Annex. G1 in No. AA/Bng/5(35)7/89-90/1993 and Annex. F in No. AA/Bng/5(35)7/89-90/1993, issued by the first respondent. Petitioner wants a direction directing the Appropriate Authority, the first respondent, to issue no objection certificate and to return the bank guarantee of Rs. 2.85 crores to the petitioner for cancellation.2. Facts in brief are as follows : Petitioner is a private limited company. It has entered into two agreements on 22nd May, 1989 with the second and third respondents viz., Mrs. Aimai N. Irani and Mr. Darius N. Irani through their power of attorney, Mr. Godrez K. Irani, for the purchase of their respective shares in the ratio of 3:1 of the property bearing Nos. 4 and 5, situated at Infantry Road, Bangalore, for a consideration of Rs. 1,38,04,850 and Rs. 46,01,475, i.e., for a total consideration of Rs. 1,84,06,325. Two forms in Form No. 37-I presc...
Tag this Judgment!Kanoria Industries Limited Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC471; [2005]128CompCas1025(Kar); ILR2005KAR2960; (2008)11VST723(Karn)
N.K. Sodhi, C.J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the prescribed authority could refuse to issue for failure to pay the arrears of tax due the declaration Form. No. 40 to a sick industrial company under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (hereinafter called the Entry Tax Act) and the Rules framed thereunder having regard to the provisions of Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short the 1985 Act). The learned single judge dismissed writ petition No. 43142 of 2003 and declined to issue a mandamus to the fourth respondent to issue Form No. 40 to the appellant under the Entry Tax Act.2. Section 3 of the Entry Tax Act provides for the levy and collection of tax on entry of goods specified in the first schedule into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein at such rates not exceeding 5 per cent of the value of the goods. This tax is payable by e...
Tag this Judgment!H.K. Chandrashekara Vs. Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-24-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2602; 2006(1)KarLJ354
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The short question that arises for the consideration of this Court in this writ petition is whether the Deputy Commissioner is competent to grant authorisation on compassionate ground in favour of the sister-in-law (younger brother's wife) of the deceased authorised dealer.2. One Rajanna was running a fair price depot at Hanaganahalli village of Mandya Taluk. He died on 4.5.2004. He was un-married and after his death, R-3 who is the sister-in-law of deceased Rajanna requested the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya to transfer authorisation on compassionate basis contending that her husband is dumb and she was entirely depending upon Rajanna for her livelihood. Based on the request of R-3 and on the recommendation of Tahsildar, Mandya, authorisation to run the fair price depot at Hanaganahalli was transferred to the name of R-3. This order is called in question by the petitioner in this writ petition.3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, authorisatio...
Tag this Judgment!Dakshyanamma Vs. B. Siddalingaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-24-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC332; ILR2005KAR3234; 2005(6)KarLJ229
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff-wife against the defendant-husband being aggrieved by the order passed by the first appellate Court allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit. The wife had filed a suit for a declaration against the husband in respect of the suit property before the Civil Judge, Jr. Dvn., Arsikere in OS 301/1993.2. There is said to be strained relationship between the parties after marriage and as they could not live together, the plaintiff wife -Dakshayanamma was given a share in lieu of her maintenance. However, as per the compromise entered into between the parties, it appears that in an earlier injunction suit it is stated that she has to enjoy the property during her life time i.e., only a limited estate was Created in the suit property. Stating that she is not allowed to enjoy the property peacefully despite her right over the suit property, she is said to have filed a declaratory suit. The suit was contested by the husband - Siddaling...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)KarLJ246
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The appellant is Canara Bank and it has preferred this writ appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16-1-2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 29644 of 1994.2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly in the first instance and they are as follows.--Respondent 5 herein, viz., M/s. Azad Industries, situated in Mangalore was an industry established in the year 1961. It was engaged in the activity of manufacturing biscuits and other confectionery items. Respondent 5 was closed down in the year 1966, it is stated, due to a dispute between the partners of the firm. It transpires that respondent 5 was due in a huge sum of amount to the State Government towards sales tax. It was also due in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and more to the Corporation of the City of Mangalore as Corporation Tax. It appears that, it has committed serious lapses and defaults in the payment of gratuity, provident fund, bonus, wages, E.S.I. contribution, etc., legi...
Tag this Judgment!Shardulsab Vs. Karnataka University by Its Registrar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-23-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2787
ORDERGopala Gowda J.1. The petitioner, party-in-person, is a Law Student. He had filed this writ petition with the following prayers:'(a) To call for all relevant documents pertaining to this case, procedure of examination, mode or system of valuation by examiner, valuation by re-examiner including moderaters, remarks application and issued legal notice in all originals from the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 from respondent No. 2 or respondent No. 3 from respondent No. 1 in the matter.(b) To issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction or any other appropriate writ setting aside the endorsement/letters dt. 29.3.2004 made in No. KVV: Exam Profession, LAW: VAI: 03-04/PRATHI/294 Annexure-'D' and dt: 04/05/04 made in KVV:KA:AND:VAI:EXAM 04-05/13 Annexure 'F' series respect passed by the respondent No. 1 including revaluation statement of marks which is not made available from respondent No. 1, to declare the performance done in Dec-2003 in papers: i) Law of Crimes, ii) Property L...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Transport Company Vs. Smt. Muthu Ganapathy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-23-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4115; 2005(6)KarLJ252
Manjula Chellur, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. 5610/01 dated 18.08.2004. The appellant herein was a defendant before the Trial Court against whom the respondent herein filed a suit for delivery of vacant possession of suit schedule premises and also a direction for the payment of Rs. 10,000/- towards the arrears of rent apart from damages from the date of suit till date of possession etc.2. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was, the appellant herein became a tenant under a lease deed dated 1.12.99 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/-. Eviction petition No. 922/90 was filed for eviction of the appellant on the ground of bonafide use and occupation of the premises. But, however, said suit was dismissed as not maintainable. Right from the beginning, the appellant did not pay the rents and as on the date of filing of the suit, he was due in a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards arrears of rent and after adjusting the arrears of rent from the advance pa...
Tag this Judgment!Skylines Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. National Airport Authority and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-23-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4397; 2005(6)KarLJ196
Manjula Chellur, J.1. The appellant herein is one of the plaintiffs who lost their suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction.2. The facts that led to the filing of the appeal in brief are as under:The second appellant is the company and the first appellant is the Chairman and Managing Director of the second appellant's company. They carry on the business of out door advertising. The respondents agreed and permitted the plaintiffs to erect a permanent VIP Welcome Arch made of concrete and steel at the entrance of the Bangalore Aerodrome opposite to HAL Park. They were further permitted to display advertisements on the same. The agreement came into existence from 21.4.1990. Under the said agreement, the appellant/plaintiffs were given permission / licence to construct and erect a VIP Welcome Arch of permanent nature at their own cost.3. It was agreed between the parties a sum of Rs. 2100/- per sq. mtr. per year would be the licence fee initially for the first three years and th...
Tag this Judgment!A. Devegowda Vs. Puttanna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)KarLJ311
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This election petition presented under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act'), by an unsuccessful candidate in the biennial elections held to elect a representative to represent Bangalore Teachers' Constituency in the Karnataka Legislative Council, prays for a declaration that the election of first respondent, who has been declared elected from this constituency, is void and illegal, for not only having received void voters in his favour but also for having indulged in corrupt practices during the election and to further declare the petitioner as duly elected for the seat from the Bangalore Teachers' Constituency to the Karnataka Legislative Council. Petitioner has also prayed for awarding costs.2. While the grounds urged in support of the petition for setting aside the election of first respondent are as contemplated in Section 100(l)(b) and also as provided for in Section 100(l)(d), particularly Clauses (i), (ii...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »