Karnataka Court October 2007 Judgments

Canara Security Press Private Limited Vs. the State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR67; 2008(1)AIRKarR282

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. This revision is by the assesee; challenging the concurrent findings of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA. No. 1901/2004 dated 29th April 2005, as well as the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Mangalore Division, Mangalore in KST. AP. No. 17/04-05 dated 30th June 2004 and the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence), West Zone, Mangalore in Case No. DCCT/INT/INS.96/2003-04.2. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of printing of high security documents like Cheques, Lottery Tickets. On the orders placed by the Director of Small Savings & State Lotteries, the petitioner has got printed and supplied the Lottery Tickets, which attracts sales tax.3. Government of Karnataka issued a notification bearing No. FD.35 CSL 96(9) dated 30th March 1996 reducing the tax payable on the sale of goods to Four per cent other than timber, pet...

Sri Sri Sri Madhusudananandapuri Swamiji of Omkarashrama Vs. the Assis ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ163; ILR2008(2)Kar17042008(1)KCCR536; 2008(2)AIRKarR557; 2008CriLJNOC321&802

ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J.1. This petition relates to an emergent order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bangalore (respondent 1) appointing the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore as the receiver of an Ashram called as 'Omkarashrama' situated in Srinivasapura, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.2. The dispute relates to the succession to the seat of his Holiness Sri Sri Sri Shivapuri Swamiji, the pontiff of Ashram who is stated to have died on 25-7-2007. The petitioner Sri Sri Sri Madhusudananandapuri Swamiji claims that as per the Will dated 26-11-2005, he was installed as successor, whereas Sri Sri Sri Purushothamanandapuri Mahaswamy claims to have been appointed as successor by the previous Swamiji on 25-10-2007.3. The observation of the 90th day obsequies ceremony of the deceased Swamiji had been arranged and apprehending clash between two groups, PSI, Kengeri Police Station submitted a report to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Western...

Great Eastern Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2008)14VST165(Karn)

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this petition:Whether the bar code printers and bar code scanners and hand held terminals fall under entry 20, Part C(ii)(a) and (b) appended to the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 19572. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 dealing in bar code printer, bar code scanners and manually operated labelling machines. For the assessment period April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2001 the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment)-13, Bangalore, by his order dated March 29, 2003 held that the goods sold by the petitioner are to be treated as electronic goods and that they do not fall under the category 'computer peripherals' enumerated under serial No. 20 of Part C of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the petitioner was called upon to pay the taxes.3. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the petitioner filed an ap...

Al-dea Electronics (P) Limited Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR151

ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to cancel the auction dated 29-12-2005 and to hold re-auction of an industrial unit of the petitioner by fixing a minimum bid of Rs. 1.50 lakhs and for certain other reliefs.2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner had availed certain financial assistance from the second respondent - Karnataka State Financial Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') for its business purpose. The petitioner was the owner of an industrial unit in Plot No. 36, KIADB Industrial Area, Hirehalli, Tumkur, measuring approximate 4 acres of land with 1600 sq.mtrs. built up industrial shed with 150 KVA, 11KV HT power installation. The petitioner has defaulted in payment of its dues to the Corporation. Therefore, the Corporation took over the industrial unit of the petitioner on 22-1 -2004 in exercise of its power under Section 29 ...

Mujawar and Co. Rep. by Sri Mujawar Vs. Sri. Fazlur Rehman S/O. Late T ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2008Kant32; 2008(2)KarLJ365; 2008(1)KCCR581; 2008(1)AIRKarR187; AIR2008Kar32; 2008AIHC1229(Kar)

V. Jagannathan, J.1. This appeal by the defendant before the trial court in O.S. No. 8258/2003 is directed against the trial court judgment decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for ejectment of the appellant from the suit schedule property.2. The facts in brief are to the effect that the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit in question seeking ejectment of the appellant herein on the ground that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale with the landlord D. Purushothm and as per the said agreement dated 22.7.1983, the said landlord had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and having received part of the consideration amount, put the plaintiff in constructive possession of the suit property and directed the appellant herein to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 3,250/- to the plaintiff. The appellant did not pay the rent and therefore, an amount of Rs. 1,17,000/ -was due for three years towards rent and even after the expiry of lease period, the appellant ...

N. Muniswamy S/O Late Chikkanallappa Vs. M. Lalitha W/O R. Muniraju

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(6)KarLJ100:2008(1)KCCRSN562008(2)AIRKarR117:AIR2008NOC1149.

K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the 30th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 1450/1985 whereby the trial Court decreed the suit and the appellant-defendant No. 1 was given two months time to remove the structure put up on the suit schedule property and to hand over vacant possession of the same to the respondent-plaintiff. It was also ordered that if the defendant tails to comply with the said order, plaintiff is at liberty to get possession of the suit schedule property along with the structure. The appellant-defendant No. 1 was also restrained by means of permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. But the trial Court dismissed the suit with regard to the relief of declaration of title and mandatory injunction.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their rankings before the trial Court2. The facts of the case are th...

Canara Security Press Private Limited by Its Manager, Sri. Madhu B.S. ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. This revision its by the assesee; challenging the concurrent findings of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA.NO. 1901/2004 dated 29th April 2005, as well as the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Mangalore Division, Mangalore in KST. AP.NO.17/04-05 dated 30th June 2004 and the order of the Deputy commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence), West Zone, Mangalore in Case No. DCCT/INT/INS.96/2003-04.2. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of printing of high security documents like cheques, Lottery Tickets. On the orders placed by the Director of small Savings & State Lotteries, the petitioner has got printed and supplied the Lottery Tickets, which attracts sales tax.3. Government of Karnataka issued a notification bearing No. FD.35 CSL 96(9) dated 30th March 1996 reducing the tax payable on the sale of goods to Four per cent other than timber, petro...

Joseph Chacko S/O Late P.J. Chacko Vs. State of Karnataka by Hennur Po ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(1)AIRKarR165; 2008CriLJNOC307

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. All these 22 Criminal Petitions arise out of the complaints filed by the respective complainants against Joseph Chacko and his staff for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506, 448, 420, 120-B r/w Section 34 IPC.2. All these petitions are filed by Jospeh Chacko and his staff, hence they are taken up together for the sake of convenience, heard and being disposed of by a common order.3. Mr. Joseph Chacko President and Proprietor of the Crown Plaza International Hotels and Resorts is the petitioner in CRL. P. Nos. 2149/2007 TO 2155/2007, 2576/2007 to 2579/2007, 2950/2007 to 2952/2007 and 2702 of 2007.4. CRL.P. 2163/2007 TO 2169/2007 is filed by the employees of the Crown Plaza International Hotels and Resorts at Hennur, Bangalore.5. Brief facts of the case leading to these petitions are that, in the year 2003 Joseph Chacko-accused, president and proprietor of the Crown Plaza International Hotels and Resorts at Hennur advertised in a news paper 'GULF TIM...

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Developme ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ182; ILR2007(4)Kar4891; 2008(1)AIRKarR523

S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. The appellants in W.A. No. 288/06 were respondent Nos. 2 & 4 in W.P. No. 4148/05, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in W.P. No. 1058/05 and respondent No. 2 in W.P. No. 1393/05, The appellant in W.A. No. 289/06 was respondent No. 3 in W.P. No. 4148/2005 and W.R. No. 1393/05. The petitioners in the said writ petitions had questioned the notification dated 27.1.2004 issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as the 'KIADB Act' for short) whereunder the lands in Sy. Nos. 110 (3 acres 15 guntas). 112 (3 acres 38 guntas), 113/1 (00-07 guntas), 113/2 (00-07 guntas), 113/3 (1 acre 02 guntas), 113/4 (00-23 guntas), 114 (1 acre 25 guntas), 115 (1 acre 35 guntas), 116 (1 acre 14 guntas), 126 (1 acre 20 guntas) and 127 (00-20 guntas), situate at Mahadevapura village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, were declared as Industrial Area, Further the notification dated 4.12,2004 issued under Section 28(4) and the notices...

M.C. Associates, a Partnership Firm Rep. by Its Managing Partner/Autho ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2008Kant207; 2009(1)KarLJ71; 2008(4)KCCR2283; 2008(6)AIRKarR134

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The appellants are the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 13030/2003 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The respondents are the respondents in the writ petition.2. The challenge in the writ petition is against Annexure-F notices dated 8.10.2002 and 13.12.2002 issued to the petitioners by the 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner under Section 45-A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The main contention of the petitioners is that the impugned notices and proceedings were without jurisdiction as the sale deed in question was registered on 7.7.1997 and the earliest notice was issued on 8.10.2002. It is contended that the petitioners had not received any earlier notice from the 2nd respondent. It is contended that proceedings under Section 45-A(3) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 can be initiated within two years from the date of registration of the document and that in this case the proceedings were initiated after the expiry of the period of two years from ...