Karnataka Court February 2006 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.
Ashoka Creations (P) Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR1880
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed being aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the respondent as per Annexure-'F' dated 7-10-2004.2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the publication published in the news paper regarding the sale of plant and machinery of the official liquidator in OLR 89/2004, the petitioner came over to Bangalore, who was the successful bidder and the possession of the plant and machineries were handed over to the petitioner on 13/3/2004 and sale certificate has been issued on 13/3/2004. It is further averred that the respondent issued a notice under Section 10 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for payment of tax, as he was a non-resident dealer, within 7 days from the date of the receipt of the notice and in response to the said notice, the petitioner replied and thereafter assessment order has been passed on 7/10/2004. Being aggr...
The State of Karnataka by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Vs. Wi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR1659
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioners have challenged in this revision petition the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in KTEG No. 112/97 allowing the appeal and setting aside the levy of entry tax on a value of Rs. 3,22,18,000/- relating to the sale of technical electronic medical equipments which were brought into local area, Bangalore.2. The brief facts leading to this petition are as hereunder:The respondent-company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of sophisticated medical diagnostic imaging equipment required by various hospitals and medical practitioners. The goods manufactured by the respondent are considered by the lower authorities as machinery which is one of the goods liable for entry tax under the provisions of Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent's business premises is near Whitefield which is not. a local area during the assessment year under appeal. On the ground that, at the instance ...
Subray Phondu Prabhu S/O Phondu Prabhu, Vs. Fathimabi W/O Shaikah Abdu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KarLJ470
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners-tenants under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 19.8.2002 passed by the District Judge, Uttara Kannada, in HRC.RP. No. 1/1998 and the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,) Ankola, in HRC. No. 2/1981 mainly on the ground that the schedule premises is situated in the Ankola and the Karnataka Rent Act is not at all applicable to the premises situated in Ankola town. Therefore, the order passed by the learned District Judge on the eviction petition filed by the respondents stands abated, in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act and the order of the District Judge that the revision petition filed by the petitioners abated is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act and even the order passed by the trial Court is not correct. The findings, given thereof are not based on any sound reasonings and the trial Court ought to ha...
State of Karnataka Vs. Krishna Parasharam Kharade and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC114
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The respondent-accused are charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 304, 306,498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The gist of the prosecution case is that Al is the husband of the deceased Bharati, A2 is the mother of A1 and A3 and A4 are the sisters of A1. The deceased was married to A1 about 7 years ago from the date of the incident. The accused persons were harassing and assaulting the deceased on the ground that she is a lazy person, does not attend the household chores, does not wash her clothes, does not know cooking and advising her to mend her habits. Out of the wedlock, the deceased had two children. Being unable to bear the harassment of her in-laws, the deceased committed suicide by hanging.2. The prosecution has proved that death of the deceased is an unnatural and suicidal death. PW 1 is the father, PW 2 is the mother, PW-3 is the relative and PW-4 is the brother of the deceased. PW Nos. 5 and 15 are inquest Panch witnesses. P...
V.L. Shankar and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Chief Secretary an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1743; ILR2006KAR1158; 2006(2)KarLJ295; 2006(2)KLT989
ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J. 1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 16-1-2001 (Annexure-E) passed by the Karnataka Upa-Lokayukta according sanction under Section 14 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 ('the Lokayukta Act') for their prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the P.C. Act, 1988') r/w. 120B and 34 of IPC. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 6-2-2001 passed by XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore City in Special C.C. No. 377 2001 taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences. The said order is produced as Annexure-G in W.P. No. 14631/2001 and as Annexure-F in W.P. No. 15364/2001.2. I have heard Sri S.K. Venkataka Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ravivarma Kumar, Learned Senior Counsel for the Upa-Lokayukta and Sri A.G. Shivanna, Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the impu...
Yeribasavana Gouda and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ198
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These two revision petitions under Section 121-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 are directed against the order passed by the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bellary, dated 31-8-1989, setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bellary, dated 11-9-1986 and holding that the landlord has failed to prove that he was getting the land in question cultivated through hired labourers and that the tenant has also failed to prove that he was cultivating the land as such on 1-3-1974 and further holding that the land is vested with the Government. Both the tenant and the landlord are aggrieved by the order passed by the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority. The tenant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, as it has set aside the order passed in favour of the tenant conferring occupancy right and has held that the land vests with the Government and the legal representatives of the landlord, are aggrieved b...
South Kanara Home Industries Vs. Employees' Provident Fund Appellate T ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR200]; ILR2006KAR1193; 2006(2)KarLJ373; (2006)IILLJ1055Kant
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the several orders passed by the respondents seeking recovery of damages under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for brevity).2. The facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of beedies. Prior to 31.5.1977 provisions of the Act were not applicable to the beedi industries. The Government of India by a Notification dated 17.5.1977 extended the provisions of the Act to beedi industries with effect from 31.5.1977. The petitioner had challenged the vires of the Notification by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 260/1978 before this Court. This Court by an order dated 4.1.1978 granted an order of stay in favour of the petitioner. However, the petitioner had voluntarily complied with the provisions of the Act and paid the contributions, periodically, with effect from 1.8.1978, notwithstanding the order of Stay granted...
Madhukeshwara S.S. Vs. University of Agricultural Sciences
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ430
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person who had aspired to be appointed for the post of Associate Professor in Plant Pathology and also for the post of Training Organizer, notified for being filled up by the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore (for short, 'the University') in terms of its Notification No. AO/RT/11/29/2004-05, dated 13th December, 2004, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition.2. The petitioner on noticing that he fulfills the qualifications prescribed for the posts in terms of the notification, applied for both the posts. The petitioner was not even called for the interview and when the petitioner was hoping either for a letter of interview or even a letter of appointment, was on the other hand provided with a copy of the caveat filed by the respondent-University before this Court.3. The petitioner was taken by surprise by this course of events and obviously had to seek legal advice and where upon has come upto this Co...