Karnataka Court September 2005 Judgments
Tata Advanced Materials Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Companie ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(193)ELT134(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition is by a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, which claims it had imported certain goods which unfortunately for the petitioner instead of being released in the normal course to the petitioner by the Customs Authority after realising the duty payable etc., came to be auctioned by the Customs Authorities and in such a sale the amount realised by the customs authorities being far less than the value as indicated by the petitioner.2. Petitioner is now seeking for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent - customs authorities and the 3rd respondent - Ware Housing Corporation who acted as a custodian of the goods under the statutory provisions to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 3,75,781/- being the value of goods disposed of by the respondents, without a proper notice to the petitioner.3. Submission of Sri. Chythanya, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the goods in question have been put to suction...
Tag this Judgment!Basanth Tiles Vs. Parashuram (Deceased) by L.Rs.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ75
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hubli, in R.A. No. 56 of 1992 wherein while reversing the finding of the Trial Court, the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed by allowing the appeal and directing 2nd defendant to execute registered conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land by receiving a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-.2. The plaintiff filed a suit against the Government of Karnataka represented by its Chief Secretary, Joint Director of Industries and Commerce and the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad who are defendants 1 to 3. Defendants 4 to 6 are Basant Tiles and its partners to whom the 2nd respondent is said to have conveyed the suit property contrary to the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant before this Court in the writ petition.3. Plaintiff was said to be the owner of property bearing Sy. No. 16/1A+1B/1...
Tag this Judgment!Century Club Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: (2007)5VST292(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. D.V. Shylendra Kumar J.-The Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 (for short, 'the Act') is an enactment by the Karnataka State Legislature to augment the revenue to the State of Karnataka, like any other taxing statutes is the subject-matter of several amendments as also challenges before the courts including the validity of the parent Act and the amendments.2. In the present instance, it is this Act, as amended by the Karnataka Act No. 5 of 2000, which is brought for scrutiny before this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for judicial review of the legislative action. The petitioners had also sought for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the assessment orders that had been passed in respect of the petitioners for the years 1995-96 to 1998-99 and 2000-01 by applying the law as had been amended under the Karnataka Act No. 5 of 2000.3. This Court in terms of the order dated J...
Tag this Judgment!The Authorised Officer and Superintendent of Excise Vs. C.T. Kumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR5346; 2006(5)KarLJ45
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This revision is by the Authorised Officer, being aggrieved of the Judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 8/1998 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, dated 15.4.2002, allowing the revision by setting aside the Order of confiscation passed by the Authorised Officer in DTCR No. 399/1995-96, dated 30.12.1997.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:That on 4.3.1996 at about 5.00 p.m., while the Inspector of Excise keeping a watch about illegal transportation of illicit liquor, intercepted a TVS moped bearing Reg. No. KA 18 E-7154. It was found that the rider of the moped Sri. N.K. Nagaraju found transporting 72 Whisky bottles in a gunny bag, without valid permit or licence. After the seizure of the illicit liquor as well as the moped bearing Reg. No. KA 18 E-7154, the records were placed before the Authorised Officer for confiscation of the vehicle as well as the liquor bottles. The owner of the moped viz., one Sri. C.T. Kumar filed an appl...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Exports Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented by Its Sec ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR5754
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. As common questions of fact and law are involved in both these writ petitions filed by the petitioner, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and export of gold jewellery. It claims that it is the largest exporter of gold jewellery in the country and has received several National and State awards for its sterling export performance over the last 15 years. They claim to have set up the World's largest jewellery manufacturing facility at Whitefield, Bangalore. It is a Central Government recognised trading house and is a 'status holder' under the Export Import Policy (2002-2007).3. Under the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (for short 'the Act') the Government has issued an Export and Import Policy for the period 2002-07 (for short 'the policy'). The policy is also accompanied by the Hand Book of Procedures for implementatio...
Tag this Judgment!Gafarsab @ Sati Gafar Sab Vs. Ameer Ahamed
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Kant95; ILR2006KAR169
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 134/1985 has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 27.9.2004 passed on I. A. No. XIII, an application filed under Section 151 of CPC read with Sections 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, rejecting the request of the petitioner to permit him to give secondary evidence in respect of the documents mentioned in the application.2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and for possession. The defendant is contesting the said claim and he has set up a title by himself to the schedule property on the basis of a grant certificate issued. The defendant filed I. A. XIII and sought permission of the Court to lead secondary evidence in respect of the documents mentioned therein by producing xerox copies of the same. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge has rejected the said application on the ground that the defendant has not disclosed as to when and from whom he got the xerox...
Tag this Judgment!Diamond Feeds Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Asst. Ii) a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Reported in: (2007)8VST537(Karn)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Our learned brother, Justice Sri Shylendra Kumar, by his order dated July 15, 2004, has referred these two writ petitions in exercise of his powers under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, for consideration by a Division Bench of this court, since according to the learned Judge, the question of law involved in these writ petitions is one of considerable general importance having repercussions on large number of dealers similarly placed like petitioners as well as on the Revenue. That is how these petitions are posted before us for determination of legal issues involved in these writ petitions.2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties to the lis. 3. The only issue that would arise in these two writ petitions for our consideration and decision is, whether the notification issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 8A of the Act dated September 23, 1993, is in any way at variance with the industrial polic...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Ashok Pai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Reported in: [2007]292ITR5(KAR); [2007]292ITR5(Karn)
H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, (the 'Tribunal' for short) has referred the statement of the case and the question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated July 25, 1994 in I.T.A. No. 880/Bang/1992 for our consideration and opinion.2. The question referred reads as under:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not exigible in the present case ?3. The assessment year in question is 1985-86. The assessee filed a return of income on March 30, 1988, declaring a loss of Rs. 2,41,647. The returns filed were accepted. The assessing authority processed the return filed by the assessee and issued a notice dated December 8, 1989, under Section 148 of the Act, by reopening the assessment. In response to this notice, the assessee filed another return of income on January 12, 1990, declaring a loss of Rs. 1,04,531. O...
Tag this Judgment!B. Rajegowda and anr. Vs. H.B. Shankaregowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Kant48; ILR2005KAR5501; 2006(6)KarLJ237
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This second appeal is by defendants 2 & 3 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. District Judge, Hassan in RA 25/1989 and 28/1989 allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff and also declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule properties.2. The plaintiff had filed a suit before the Civil Judge, Hassan in OS 195/1981 seeking for a decree of declaration, permanent injunction and in the alternative, for possession of the suit properties and for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit schedule properties. According to the plaintiff, late Basavegowda the father of the plaintiff and defendants had five sons and there was a partition on 24.11.1974 among the father and sons and a palupatti was written evidencing the partition. The properties in Sy.No. 59/4 -garden land to the extent of 16 guntas' Sy.No. 58/5 B(2) Dry land to the extent of 28 guntas and Sy. No. 123/3-Wet land ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivanna Naik Vs. Bangalore University, Jnana Bharathi and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR5747; 2006(1)KarLJ113
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The 1st respondent University issued a Notification dated 15-11-2001 inviting applications for the post of Lecturers in Law. The petitioner was one of the applicants. According to him he belongs to Schedule Caste. Though he was eligible, his application was not considered by the respondent-University and selected another person under the backlog vacancy. In the circumstances, the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondent, submitted an application requisition the respondent to furnish the details' as per the provisions of the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000, which application has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision to furnish the documents under the Bangalore University Regulations. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Registrar, which appeal is also dismissed as not maintainable as per Annexure-'F' dated 16-12-2003. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »