Karnataka Court September 2007 Judgments

Addison and Co. Ltd. Represented HereIn by Its Company Secretary, Mr. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR519; (2008)14VST182(Karn); 2008(1)KCCRSN49; 2008(3)AIRKarR48; AIR2008NOC1797

ORDER1. This revision petition is filed by the assessee questioning the correctness of the order dated 31.8.2005 passed in STA No. 2375/2004 in dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the Assessing Authority by framing the following three questions of law and urging various grounds in support of the same and prayed to answer the questions of law in favour of the assessee:Whether on the facts, in the circumstances and on the contentions taken, the Tribunal was right in:(1) Holding that the subject tools were in the nature of accessories to machinery and therefore liable to entry-tax?(2) Differing from its previous order rendered in the petitioner's case for the earlier assessment years on 'ex facie' wrong premise and in any case, in violation of Regulation 54 of the Regulations? And(3) Altogether ignoring the settled position of law that if a particular practice or position had been accepted by the Revenue for a long number of years, the same cannot be departed from - more so ...

Arjun Motors Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Director, Sri M.N. Madhava Murthy V ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2008Kant39; (2008)13VST309(Karn); 2008(1)KCCRSN46; 2008(2)AIRKarR16; AIR2008Kant39

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This petition is filed by M/S. Arjun Motors Pvt. Ltd. to set aside the order elated 20.3.2003 passed in c.Mis. No. 240/2002 on the file of the Spl. MFC (Sales Tax) rejecting his objection in the said case,2. The respondent No. 2 herein was an assessee and he was due in a sum of Rupees Twenty lakhs towards security deposit. Since respondent No. 2 has not paid the arrears of security deposit the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 13(b) of the kst Act for recovery of Rs. 20 Lakhs from respondent No. 2 when the matter was pending before the Special JMFC (Sales Tax), Bangalore, the petitioner herein appeared as an objector and resisted the recovery proceedings against respondent No. 2. The contention taken by the petitioner in this revision petition is that the respondent No. 2 raised a loan from ICICI bank. On being unable to repay the said loan, to the bank, the bank issued a demand notice dated 23.11.2002 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation an...

Mahesh Centre Joint Family Firm Represented by Father/Manager D.L. Nan ...

Court: Karnataka

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. This Regular First Appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 27.3.2002 in O.S. No. 5309/1990 passed by the XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City dismissing the suit of plaintiff for specific performance for lease of schedule property.2. The appellants are the plaintiffs. Respondents are the defendants. The parties in this appeal are referred to by their status before the Trial Court.3. First defendant is a public charitable trust. Defendants 2 to 4 are the Trustees. Defendants are the owners of schedule property. Plaintiffs are engaged in developing modern building/complexes. The defendants invited tenders in the month of May/June 1980 for development of schedule property. Plaintiffs through their letter dated 17.6.1980 offered to develop the schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, after long correspondence, there came to be a concluded contract for development of schedule property. Since the defendants failed to perform their part of obligatio...

Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. (Former Known as Betul Tyres and Tubes) b ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR4284; 2007(4)KCCRSN312

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The core point, which calls for determination in these writ petitions is, the extent of judicial review permissible in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the tender prescribing eligibility criteria. The moot question would be whether this Court could change the terms incorporated in the tender notice on the ground of it being inappropriate and the objective would be better served by adopting a different eligibility criteria.2. The facts that are relevant for the purpose of disposing of this writ petition can be summarized as follows:The petitioner-company claims that it is engaged in the manufacturing of Tyre and Tube business. It is a reputed manufacturer and for over a period of time has earned good will in the said Industry and also with the industries in which its goods are used. The petitioner would state that it has been supplying Tyres, Tubes and Flaps to several State Transport Corporations apart from ...

State by Sub-inspector of Police Vs. Satish Shetty and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2490; ILR2008KAR1432; 2008(5)KarLJ50; 2008(2)KCCR929; 2008(3)AIRKarR96; 2008(3)AICLR396(DB)

Manjula Chellur, J.1. This is yet another case involving a young lady who has left this world at the age of 25 years leaving behind a tender aged son by name Rakesh that too when she was pregnant of 20 weeks. The State has come up with this appeal challenging the Judgment and Order of acquittal, wherein the respondents were tried for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:It is not in dispute that the deceased-Rekha was affectionately called as Baby by her kith and kin married the 1st respondent/accused on 5-6-1991. The relationship inter se between the respondents i.e. accused No. 1 being the son of accused Nos. 2 and 3, and accused No. 4 being the son-in-law of accused Nos. 2 and 3 is not in dispute. The relationship of deceased-Rekha with P.W. 6-mother, P.W.7-first cousin and P.Ws. 9 and 19-maternal uncles is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute tha...

Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(3)KCCR1826; 2008(5)AIRKarR405(DB)

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 08.06.2006 in Writ Petition No. 38992 of 2000. The appellants arc the respondents in the writ petition and the respondent herein is the petitioner in the writ petition.2. The petitioner was a Subedar Clerk in the Army. While lie was serving as Subedar Clerk his case was considered for promotion to the rank of Subedar Major on three occasions viz., 1997, 1998 and 1999, but he was not selected for promotion to the cadre of Subedar Major. The non-selection of the petitioner for promotion was based on his Annual Confidential Reports. Alleging that there were manipulations and insertions in his Annual Confidential Reports and hence they could not be the basis for refusing promotion to him, the petitioner filed a statutory complaint dated 01.03.2000 to the Chief of the Army Staff. The statutory complaint was rejected by the Chief of the Army Staff on the ground that it lacked substance and that the redress sought had ...

Sri Ni Pra Channabasava Deshikendra Swamigalu Matadhipathigalu Kannada ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR805; 2008(3)KarLJ560; ILR2009(4)Kar4429; 2008(2)KCCR696; 2008(2)AIRKarR504; 2008(4)CivilLJ481(DB).

1. All the three appeals arise out of the common order. Hence all the appeals are considered together for common disposal.2. The lands bearing Sy. No. 9, 10, 12 & 13 of Bettigeri village are inam lands belongs to the appellant Mutt governed by Karnataka Certain Inam Abolition Act, 1977, hereinafter referred to as the Act-1977. The appellant in the first instance by a registered deed dated 1/3/1955 created usufructuary mortgage of the land to the extent of 175 acres 60 cents and in the second phase usufructuary mortgage is created by registered deed dated 5/4/1967 to an extent of 17 acres. Both the registered deeds are executed in favour of predecessors of the respondents 1 to 5.3. After the advent of 'Act-1977', the appellant made an application for re-grant of the above lands, The respondents 1 to 5 also made an application for grant of occupancy rights, The Tribunal re-granted the lands to the appellant, The claim of respondents 1 to 5 for occupancy rights was rejected, The responden...

Smt. Haannurammabai Kalal (Deceased) by L.R. Vs. Cantonment Board

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(3)KarLJ528; 2008(1)AIRKarR178; 2008AIHC1220(Kar); 2008AIHC1220(Kar)

V. Jagannathan, J.1. The suit filed by the appellant for injunction restraining the respondent-Cantonment Board (the 'Board' in short) and also to declare the notices issued under Sections 185 and 256 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, as null and void, was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the appellant ought to have sought the remedy under the Cantonments Act itself and also for not complying with the requirement of issuing notice to the Cantonment Board and following the dismissal of the suit, the appeal was preferred before the lower Appellate Court in R.A. No. 31 of 1994 and the appellant was unsuccessful as the Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No. 187 of 1988. Thus, the plaintiff is before this Court in this second appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are to the effect that the appellant claiming to be the owner in possession of suit property bearing House No. 57, situated at High Street, Camp-Belgaum, and having h...

Hutchison Essar South Ltd. a Registered Company Incorporated Under the ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2008Kant14; ILR2007KAR4362; 2008(3)KarLJ106

ORDERAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. Although the matter was listed for hearing on IA.I of 2007 for vacating the interim order of stay, I have taken up the main matter itself for disposal with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties.2. This writ petition is filed seeking, interalia, a declaration that the petitioner's leasehold rights over the premises bearing No. 209, 1st Main Road, Seshadripuram, Bangalore, are not regulated and/or covered by Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ['Securitisation Act' for short] and consequently the writ of certiorari for quashing the first respondent's communication, dated 8th December, 2005 (Annexure-D), which calls upon the petitioner to vacate the said premises before 15th December, 2005.3. The brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid premises was leased by the second respondent to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 40,710/- (Rupees forty thousand seven hun...

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. a Company Incorporated U ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ106; ILR2007(4)Kar3956; 2007(4)KCCRSN245; 2007(6)AIRKarR33(DB)

S.R. Bannurmath and A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ.1. The appellant, had filed the writ petition seeking the following prayers: To,(a) declare Regulation 43 of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (General Conduct of Proceedings) Regulations 2000, ('Regulations' for short), as ultra vires and unenforceable;(b) direct the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission not to give effect to or apply Regulation 43 of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (General Conduct of Proceedings) Regulation 2000;(c) to quash the letter of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 15.12.2000, rejecting Appeal No. 32/2000 and for directing the 'Commission' to entertain the said Appeal and decide the same on merits.2. The writ petition having been dismissed by the learned Single judge, this writ appeal has been filed, to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition.3. We have heard Sri S. Naganand, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant and...