Karnataka Court August 2005 Judgments
Cit Vs. Vysya Bank Ltd. and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-2005
Reported in: [2006]282ITR185(KAR); [2006]282ITR185(Karn); [2006]152TAXMAN297(Kar)
The writ petition is directed against the order dated 11-12-2000, passed by the Settlement Commission functioning under Chapter XIX-A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), an order which is at an intermediate stage and even during the pendency of the proceedings before the Settlement Commission, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax Karnataka.2.The impugned order is according to the petitioner not proper or one which virtually seeks to assume jurisdiction by the Commission when it could not have done so under the statutory provisions, particularly, under section 245C(1) of the Act and, therefore, the need for the petitioner to test the correctness or otherwise of such an order as an order involving interpretation of the provisions of section 245C(1) of the Act.3.The brief facts leading to the petition are that respondent No. 1 scheduled bank had filed its return for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1999-2000. The assessment orders had been passe...
Tag this Judgment!Vasavadatta Cements Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-2005
Reported in: (2007)10VST667(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition is by a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act').The petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated February 4, 2000 (copy at annexure H) passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Government of Karnataka, whereunder the concerned officer had indicated that while the petitioner was entitled for refund in respect certain sales tax payments made for a particular period mentioned in the order but also declined to grant the remaining amount of refund claimed. It is aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition is filed.2. Submission of Sri Pramod N. Kathavi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the order declining refund in respect of major portion of its claim which was for a sum of Rs. 3,48,290 and allowing refund to an extent of Rs. 23,760 under the impugned order is clearly contrary to the Government notifications allowing refunds in respect of persons like the peti...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Jagadish and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka Represented by Its Chief ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant418; ILR2005KAR4510
ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners who claim to be self employed Tourist Photographers have sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to collect licence fee from them for their carrying on the business of photography in public/tourist places like Vidhana Soudha, Cubbon Park, Lalbagh etc.2. Facts in brief: It is stated in the petition that the petitioners are professional tourist photographers who are engaged in the business of taking photos of tourists visiting Vidhana Soudha, Cubbon Park, Lalbagh and other historical places in and around Bangalore. According to them, respondents 2 and 4 insisting them to obtain licence and to pay an annual tax of Rs. 2,000/-. To prove the same, they have produced Anenxures-A, B and C which are the notices issued by the Deputy Director of Horticulture, Cubbon Park, Bangalore (R4). Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners have presented this writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief.3. I have hear...
Tag this Judgment!Adharsha Hospital Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR5037; 2005(5)KarLJ521
ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J.1. This writ petition is by a hospital praying for a direction to the Drug Inspector (respondent 3) not to interfere with the functioning of the hospital so far as it relates to collection, storage and transfusion of human blood.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged two contentions; that the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ('the Act' for short) does not apply to the aforesaid activity of the petitioner-hospital as human blood is not a 'drug' coming within the ambit of Section 3(b) of the Act. Without prejudice to the said contention, he nextly contended that a hospital engaged in collection, storage and transfusion of human blood is not a 'Blood Bank' within the meaning of Rule 122-F of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 ('the Rules' for short) and hence no licence as contemplated in the said Rule is necessary.Learned Government Pleader opposed the petition and submitted that the respondents have the power under the Act and the Rules to regulate the collection,...
Tag this Judgment!Adarsha Hospital Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant416
ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J. 1. This writ petition is by a Hospital praying for a direction to the Drug Inspector (R3) not to interfere with the functioning of the hospital so far as it relates to collection, storage and transfusion of human blood.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged two contentions; that the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 ('the Act' for short) does not apply to the aforesaid activity of the petitioner/hospital as human blood is not a drug coming within the ambit of Section 3(b) of the Act. Without prejudice to the said contention, he next contended that a hospital engaged in collection, storage and trans-fusion of human blood is not a 'Blood Bank' within the meaning of Rule 122F of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945 ('the Rules' for short) and hence no licence as contemplated in the said rule is necessary.Learned Government, Pleader opposed the petition and submitted that the respondents have the power under the Act and the Rules to regulate the collection, storage and tra...
Tag this Judgment!Manchegowda (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)KarLJ130
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition is by a purchaser of a granted land that had been granted in favor of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community in terms of a grant order dated 12-11-1956 and followed up by issue of a saguvali chit dated 11-3-1965 which had been mortgaged in favour of the petitioner in terms of a mortgage deed dated 5-4-1965 followed up by a sale deed dated 22-11-1966.2. The Assistant Commissioner to whom the legal heirs of the original grantee had petitioned invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, examined such an application after issue of notice to the petitioner, held an enquiry, found that the mortgage deed dated 5-4-1965 was in violation of the terms of the grant; that it was not only within the period of 10 years even from the date of the grant, but immediately following the issue of a saguvali chit, subsequent transaction of sale also gets voided in v...
Tag this Judgment!Aruna and anr. Vs. Madhavva and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant422; ILR2005KAR5736
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hubli, in R.A. No. 120/1993, dated 16-12-2002, allowing the appeal and modifying the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff and JMFC, Kundagol, in O.S. No. 165/1989 dated 28-8-1993.2. The brief facts of the case with reference to rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows :--The schedule properties comprise of 4 landed properties and 2 house properties belonging to Bharamappa who died on 18-8-63, leaving behind his wife Madhavva (the original plaintiff), daughters viz., Shankaravva and Neelavva, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 respectively and a son Mahaveer who died on 13-4-86, leaving behind his wife (defendant No. 1) and his mother Madhavva, and Madhavva died on 10-10-94. The trial Court after considering the entire material on record held that the plaintiff is entitled to 5/12th share in the schedule properties and ne...
Tag this Judgment!inventa Software India (Private) Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: (2008)17VST362(Karn)
H.L. Dattu, J.1. These two appeals are filed against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-I, Bangalore, in Case No. SMR/KST/BLD-I/CR.3/95-96 for the assessment years, namely, 1989-1990 and 1990-91, dated July 15, 1996. By the impugned order, the revisional authority has set aside the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) in Appeal Nos. 364 and 365 of 1994-95, dated February 25, 1995 and further has modified the orders passed by the assessing authority under Section 12A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, dated January 12, 1995 and December 21, 1994 for the assessment years 1990-1991 and 1989-1990, respectively, to the extent of recomputing the turnover after allowing 10 per cent of the total contract receipts as deductions under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957.2. The facts in brief are:The assessee is a dealer registered both under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the KST Act,' for...
Tag this Judgment!Subbireddy Vs. K.N. Srinivasa Murthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Kant4; 2005(6)KarLJ489
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. These appeals are arising out of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chikballapur, in R.A. Nos. 25, 27 and 24 of 1998 respectively in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bagepalli, in O.S. Nos. 214, 216 and 215 of 1991 respectively.2. These cases have been taken together for disposal since common questions of law are involved and the matters are similar and the relief sought for is also similar in nature. The parties are referred according to their rank before the Trial Court.3. R.S.A. No. 159 of 2001 is arising out of O.S. No. 214 of 1991 and R.A. No. 25 of 1998 respectively. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 214 of 1991 filed a suit against defendants for specific performance on the basis of the agreement dated 23-1-1982 said to have been executed by the defendants in favor of the plaintiff. The suit schedule property said to be l/3rd share of defendants to the western side of garden land...
Tag this Judgment!Khalid Saleem Vs. Sri. Manjaiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4354; 2005(6)KarLJ375
H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this writ appeal the appellant has called in question the order of the learned single Judge dated 17-3-2004 in W.P. No:5591/ 2004 dismissing the writ petition.2. The subject matter in this appeal is four acres of land in survey No. 653/P, Aldur village, Chikmagalur District. This land was granted in favour of the father of the 1st respondent by name Boothaiah under a grant order dated 5-9-1951 at an upset price of Rs. 10/- per acre. The original grantee Boothaiah, sold the land in question in favour of the appellant under a sale deed dated 27-7-1971. After the demise of original grantee Boothaiah his son, the 1st respondent herein approached the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner to declare the sale deed dated 27-7-1971 in favour of the appellant as null and void and put him in possession of the land in question under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »