Karnataka Court September 2006 Judgments
South India Wire Ropes Ltd. a Company Registered Under the Companies A ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Kant59; ILR2007(1)KarSN10:2007(1)KCCRSN19:2007(1)AIRKarR267
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This Regular First Appeal by the first defendant is against Judgment and decree dated 16-2-2001, passed in OS No. 2066 of 1984, on the file of the V Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suit for permanent injunction.2. The first defendant being purchaser of certain machinery from the plaintiff and the second defendant being the bank which had issued a guarantee in favour of the first defendant purchaser for a sum of Rs 1.75 lakh showing payment of the amount to the first defendant on demand.3. The suit of the plaintiff having been decreed by the trial court the present appeal by the aggrieved first defendant purchaser of the machinery from the plaintiff.4. The case of the plaintiff in brief before the trial court was that the plaintiff and the first defendant had entered into an agreement for supply and commissioning of certain specialized machinery known as wire drawing machine to be commissioned at the premises of the first defendant; that ...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Karnataka State Small Indus ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR1170]; ILR2006KAR4015
1. All these appeals are filed against the common order dated 12.9.2000 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the ESI Court') in ESI Application No. 52/1998 and 28/1998. In the said applications, the Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'KSSIDC' for short) was the applicant and the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESI Corporation) was the respondent. The ESI application No. 28/98 relates to claim of interest and ESI Application No. 52/1998 relates to the claim of damages by the ESI Corporation. The ESI Court by its order dated 12.9.2000 has limited the claim of interest only to the periods from 7.2.1997 to 25.10.1997 and damages at 25% for the said period. The ESI Corporation being aggrieved by the limiting of the interest has preferred MFA No. 272/01 and in so far as reducing the damages has filed MFA No. 270/01. The KSSIDC being aggrieved in so far as granting interest even for the said period ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Sampath Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ100
K. Ramanna, J.1. Though this matter is listed for admission with consent of both counsel the matter is heard and disposed of with the following order.2. This is an appeal filed against the order dated 20-9-2006 passed by (he Fast Track Court V in S.C. No. 414/06 directing this appellant to suffer imprisonment for a term of six months for non-payment of penalty amount.3. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the State Public Prosecutor-II for respondent-State.4. It is an admitted fact that the appellant-Sam path happens to be a public servant has executed a surety bond for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on behalf of the accused in Criminal No. 145/04 (CC. No. 12978/05) before the IInd Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore. After filing the charge-sheet summons were issued by the IIIrd Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore, in C.C. No. 12978/05. Later he was present on 22-4-2006 and was committed to Sessions Court which was registered in S.C. 414/2006 and made over to Fast Track Court-V. It is argued by the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Kamath Restaurant Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zon ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: (2007)8VST172(Karn)
R. Gururajan, J.1. The appellant-dealer is covered by the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. It is engaged in the business of running restaurants and the above appeal refers to the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. For the assessment year 1994-95, appellant declared a turnover of Rs. 1,51,25,180.99. The Intelligence authority inspected the business premises of M/s. Kamath Restaurant, one of the restaurants run by the appellant on March 13, 1995. During the course of inspection, the Intelligence authority verified the books of account and pointed out that the appellant has not reported the actual turnover and threatened the appellant that he would initiate criminal prosecution against the appellant. The Intelligence authority offered an opportunity of compounding the alleged offence of the appellant. The appellant chose to pay the compounding fee though it did not admit any suppression of turnover. Cheques were issued to the Intelligence authority as payment of advance tax. The...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Rep. by Secretary Finance Department Vs. M.K. Agrot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: (2007)8VST154(Karn)
ORDER1. State is before us raising the following questions of law;a. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in giving a finding that the process involved in the extraction of Soya bean Oil by solvent extraction process resulting in the end products of de-oiled Soya bean cake and Soya bean Oil from Soya bean seeds is not a manufacturing process and levy of tax is not attracted under Section 6 of the KST Act on the purchase turnover of soya bean seeds?b. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the tribunal is justifiable in holding that the soya bean seeds and the de-oiled soya bean cake are not different commodities?c. Whether the tribunal is justified in giving a finding that the levy of tax is not attracted on the sale of de-oiled soya bean cake which is obtained from soya bean seeds purchased from the registered dealers as first dealer under the provisions of the KST Act?2. Facts in brief are as under;Respondent is a dealer...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (Bangalore City Corporat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ497; 2006(6)AIRKarR584(DB);
1. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 6/10/2003 passed by the Court of 26th Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, in O.S.No. 16443/1999, two appeals are fifed - RFA No. 15/2004 by the Commissioner, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike ('BMP' for short) and its officials and RFA.88/2004 by Abdul Khuddus. To avoid confusion, the parties herein are being described with reference to their ranks in the Trial Court.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff fifed the suit for the recovery of damages to the extent of Rs. 16 lakhs and for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of dispossession (9-1-1995) till the plaintiff is put back in possession of the suit schedule premises.3. The plaintiff was allotted the suit schedule premises by the House Rent Controller, Civil Station, Bangalore for non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. 450/-. The plaintiff was doing his garment business in the suit schedule premises. It is his further case that he h...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanamma and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: ILR2006(4)KarSN30; 2007(1)KarLJ396
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District dated 26-4-2004, confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bangalore, dated 26-4-2003, wherein, the Assistant Commissioner in exercise of his power under Section 136(2) read with Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 has cancelled the grant made in favour of respondents 1 to 4 before him.2. It is the contention of the petitioners that respondents 1 to 4 before the Assistant Commissioner had died. It is their case that respondent 1-T. Muniyappa had died on 19-8-1990, the respondent 2-Krishnappa had died on 2-6-2000, the respondent 3-Muniyellappa had died on 17-6-2000 and respondent 4-Muniyappa had died on 31-10-1999. It is their contention that though respondents 1 to 4 had died, the Assistant Commissioner has proceeded to pass the impugned order on the ground that notice issued to the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Eshappa Vs. the Chief Engineer (Electricity), Gescom, Bellary Zone and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLJ321; 2006(4)KCCR2670; 2006(6)AIRKarR536
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner in this petition has sought for a direction, directing the respondents to enhance the amount of compensation from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 8 lakhs as mentioned in the representation dated 5th November, 2004 vide Annexure-B.2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the petitioner is a resident of Varatnal Village, Koppal Taluk and District and he is an agricultural coolie. On the fateful day of 30th July, 2003, the wife of the petitioner, namely Smt. Hanumawa went to the land of one Smt. Shivamma Bellur for the agricultural coolie work. Unfortunately, due to negligence on the part of the respondent-jurisdictional local employee, an electric wire cut off and the same fell on the guy wire of an electric pole. The deceased Hanumawa without having any knowledge regarding the falling of the said wire on the guy wire of an electric pole, came in contact with the said guy wire and thereby electrocuted and died on the spot. On account...
Tag this Judgment!Mc.Dowell and Co., Rep. by Its Managing Director Sri. Vijay Kumar Rekh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-2006
Reported in: [2007]291ITR439(KAR); [2007]291ITR439(Karn)
R. Gururajan, J.1. M/s. McDowell & Co., is before us raising the following questions of law in the light of the order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No. 1947/1992 dated 17.5.1999:1. Whether on the facts, the Tribunal was right in denying investment allowance on effluent treatment plant holding that the said plant and machinery was an integral part of the plant and machinery for the production of liquor which item would fall under 11th Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. Whether on the facts when the effluent treatment plant is exclusively used for the process of effluent and no part of the plant and machinery was used for manufacture of liquor, the bar, under 11th Schedule to allow investment allowance would operate against grant of investment allowance for the said plant and machinery?2. Facts in brief are as under:The appellant-Company claimed investment allowance on the effluent treatment plant installed in its IMFL Unit amounting to Rs. 26,35,439/-. The same was disallowed by th...
Tag this Judgment!A. Sreeramaiah, S/O. J. Anjanappa Vs. the South Indian Bank Ltd. a Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR4032; 2007(1)KarLJ67
Subhash B. Adi, J.1. The appellant is the first defendant and the respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,11,582/-. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 12.10.2004. When this matter came up for consideration before this Court, this Court after noticing the rival contentions, found that there was an element of possibility of settlement and suggested the terms of settlement to the parties. In the light of the suggestions made by this Court, the parties settled the matter out of full Court and reported the same.2. In the light of settlement of the matter, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is entitled for the refund of full court fees. He referred to Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (Central Act) and submitted that any settlement arrived at, in terms of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, party is entitled for refund of full court fees under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »