Karnataka Court October 2007 Judgments
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. I.T.C. Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: 2009[13]STR333
1. Though the matter is listed for admission, by the consent of both the parties, the appeal is heard for final disposal.2. This appeal is by the revenue. The respondent-assesses is a manufacturer of various brands of cigarette falling under Chapter 24 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for the period from 1-1-1975 to 28-2-1983. The assessment was finalised on 30-8-2002, where under, there was an excess payment to an extent of Rs. 3,76,29,657,73/- by the assesse. On 19-4-2003, the assessee filed a refund application seeking refund of the excess amount paid by him, thereafter, on 17-6-2003, a show cause notice was issued to him by the department calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the amount should not be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund established under Section 12C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On 31-8-2004, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Ban galore, by his Order-in-Original No. 129/04 ordered for sanction of refund of Rs. 3,76,29,658/- an...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of L and T Komatsu Limited by Its Chief Executive Vs. L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR326; 2008(1)AIRKarR247; 2008LabIC(NOC)233(Kar)
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. W.P.No. 38974/99 is preferred by the Management of Larsen & Toubro Komatsu Limited challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 13.8.99 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, in I.D.No. 12/97, in so far as it pertains to reinstatement of four employees. W.P.No. 29500/2000 is preferred by the Larsen & Toubro Employees Association and its four workmen who were dismissed from the service challenging the very same award in so far as it denied hack wages and wages for the strike period and for other reliefs. As in these writ petitions what is impugned is the common award passed by the Industrial, Tribunal these writ petitions are taken up for consideration together, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. The facts in brief leading to the impugned award are as under:Larson and Toubro Komatsu Limited is a leading engineering industry in India with an annual turn over of more than Rs. 4,300/- crores, on the date of the writ petition. It is having a factory ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Narayan Baburao Sapakal Vs. Basavaraj S/O Sangappa Guled
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ93; 2008(1)AIRKarR585; 2008(2)ICC844
ORDERR.B. Naik, J.1. This petition is filed by the landlord challenging the order passed by the I Additional District Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubli in R.R. No. 26/2006 dated 23-3-2007 where under the order passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Jr.Dn in RCA No. 30/2005 dated, 2-9-2006 is set aside.2. The landlord/petitioner sought eviction of the respondent under Section 27(2)(e) & (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The trial Court on appreciation of the material on record held that the landlord is entitled for an order of eviction as against the tenant and directed the tenant to vacate the premises in question within a period of three months from the date of order which order was the subject matter of challenge in Revision No. 26/2006 filed by the tenant. The Revisional Court up set the order of the trial Court and rejected the claim of the landlord on both the counts holding that the landlord is not entitled for an order of eviction either under Section 27(2)(e) or under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Vs. Murlidhar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ141; 2008(1)KCCR218; 2008(1)AIRKarR412; AIR2008NOC629; 2008(2)ICC852; 2008AIHC1391(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This civil revision petition Under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is by the 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 85 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gulbarga being aggrieved by the order dated 6-1-2007, whereby, the learned Trial Judge has not passed a clear order on the application filed by the revision petitioner Under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the CPC but has relegated deciding the application after recording the evidence of the parties.2. Petitioner has pleaded that the learned Trial Judge could not have deferred passing an order on the application; that an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(d) should be decided at the threshold as otherwise the very object and purpose of the provision will be defeated and that the learned Trial Judge ought to have allowed the application and returned the plaint.3. I have heard Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pramod P. Kulkarni, learne...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Hemachandra Sagar S/O Late R. Dayananda Sagar and Dr. Premachandra ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ166; 2008(1)KCCR221; 2008(1)AIRKarR606; AIR2008NOC634; 2008(2)ICC854; 2008AIHC1445(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 4-1-2006 passed in P Misc No 726 of 1993, on the file of XV Additional City Civil 6s Sessions Judge, Bangalore City,2. Under the impugned order, the leaned trial judge had permitted the plaintiffs-respondents to prosecute the suit filed by them as indigent persons. It is aggrieved by tills order, the defendants in the suit have filed tills civil revision petition.3. Civil revision petition having been admitted and the respondents, who are beneficiaries of the impugned order, have entered appearance through counsel Sri M.C. Ravikumar.4. I have heard Sri Jayavittalrao Kolar learned senior counsel for petitioners, Sri M.C. Ravikumar, learned Counsel for the respondents and also Sri Venkataramana, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the state.5. Submission of Sri Kolar senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the trial judge has commi...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Gutti Basaveshwar Leasing Finance and Pawn Brokers (Regd.) Vs. Ma ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC665; 2008(2)KLJ134; 2008(1)KCCR153; 2008(1)AIRKarR559; 2008(2)ICC846; 2008AIHC1414(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This civil revision petition under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964 against the judgment and decree dated 15.2.2006 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Gulbarga, in S.C. No. 33 of 2004, thereby dismissing the suit as barred by limitation.2. The suit of the plaintiff was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,500/- with interest at 23% per annum from 14.12.2000 till the date of realisation and with cost etc. The defendant though did not contest the suit, the learned trial Judge examined the case of the plaintiff, particularly, the plaintiff-firm itself having pleaded that the loan transaction was of the year 2000 i.e. to be precise on 13.9.2000 and the suit having been filed beyond the period of three years from this day, prima facie, the suit was barred by limitation, framed the point whether plaintiff-firm was entitled to the relief claimed for and having answered the same in the negative holding that the suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Sharanabasappa S/O Pampanna Shettar, Vs. Shivakumar S/O Basetteppa Sun ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR5160; 2008(2)KarLJ636; 2008(2)KCCR822:2008(1)AIRKarR224; AIR2008NOC559; 2008(2)ICC55; 2008AIHC1254(Kar)(DB)
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. This appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.9.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Koppal in O.S. No. 56/1994 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.2. The facts of the case as per the pleadings are as follows:Sangappa Shettar of Koppal was the owner of the suit schedule properties-A to D. Schedule-A consists of lands and Schedule-B, C and D consists of shops and houses. According to the plaintiffs, all these 'A' to 'D' schedule properties were owned and possessed by the said Sangappa Shettar and it is pleaded that even though Schedule-A lands i.e., Sy.No. 631 and 632 were in the name of the wife of Sangappa Shettar by name Mahantamma the said lands belonged to Sangappa only, as the same was purchased by him and out of love and affection towards his wife, he had purchased the same nominally in her name. As such, though the name of Mahantamma appears in all relevant records, in respect of these two land...
Tag this Judgment!Mspl Limited Vs. S.B. Minerals
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Kant60; 2008(2)KLJ131; 2008(1)KCCR426; 2008(2)AIRKarR207; 2008AIHC1664(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This civil revision petition Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 174 of 2003 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hospet, is directed against the order dated 24-9-2007 passed by the learned Trial Judge answering the preliminary issue which was framed as additional issue 1 and which reads as under:Whether the defendant proves that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable under the law and barred by law?against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the suit of the plaintiff was maintainable for seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant.2. It is aggrieved by this order contending, inter alia, that the very suit filed by the plaintiff-firm represented by a partner whose name did not figure in the register of the Registrar of firms, as a partner of the firm on the day when the suit was filed, the present revision petition o...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Basant Residency Rep. by Its Managing Director, Basant Kumar Pat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ89
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the interim order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in a pending appeal in No. 131 of 2005 and on IA-I, where under the petitioner, who had questioned the order dated 13-1-2005 passed by the excise commission, withdrawing the CL-7 licence that had been issued in favour of the petitioner and had declined to grant stay of withdrawal of the licence pending considering of the appeal.2. The writ petitioner contends, inter alia, that the order passed by the single member of the tribunal is in violation of the procedural law; that when the appeal was admitted, there was no scope for rejecting the application for stay; that it indicates lack of application of mind; that the dispute regarding distance between the place of business of petitioner wherein the permission was granted to utilize a CL-7 licence, and the temple located across at the instance of the trustees of which temple the licence had come to...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Sea Rock Investment Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-2007
Reported in: [2009]317ITR253(KAR); [2009]317ITR253(Karn)
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the Revenue. The respondent-assessee is a private limited company known as M/s. Sea Rock Investment Ltd. On November 29, 1996, the assessee filed the return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 1,76,20,086 and the matter was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on March 26,1998. Accordingly an intimation was sent to the assessee. Later on, January 17, 1998, the assessee filed a revised return declaring a loss of Rs. 92,19,086. The same was processed on March 31, 1998. The case was taken up for scrutiny by issuing a notice under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, after discussion, accounts were verified. The assessee is an investment and trading company dealing in purchase and sale of investments. During the relevant year, the assessee claims to have sold 5,40,159 shares of M/s. ICDS Limited at the rate of Rs. 220 per share for consideration of Rs. 11,88,34,980 and taking into account the cost of shares, the surplus realised by the assess...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »