Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2000(3)KarLJ121
ORDER1. This revision under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act ('the Act' for short) is directed against the order dated 2-9-1992 of the Chief Judge of Small Causes at Bangalore City in H.R.C. No. 1971 of 1983 dismissing the landlord's eviction petition under Section 21(1) (a)and (h) of the Act. Revision petitioner herein is the landlord and petitioner in the eviction proceedings. Respondents are tenants. I shall hereinafter refer to them as they are arrayed in the eviction petition for the purpose of convenience.2. Briefly stated the facts are:Petitioner-deceased Laxmipathi is the owner of the premises bearing No. 15, Poornaprasad Compound, High Grounds, Race Course Road, Bangalore City. There are more than one tenements in the said compound and the petitioner lives in one of the portions, other portions are leased to several other persons. It emerges from the pleadings and as well from the evidence that one Kantamma, sister of the deceased petitioner-Laxmipathi lives in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
:1. : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE26H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA AND THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR ITAs No.100111-100120/2015 c/w ITAs No.100012/2016, 100013/2016, 100014/2016, 100015/2016, 100016/2016 & 100017/2016 In ITAs No.100111-100120/2015: BETWEEN RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT, RANNA NAGAR TIMMAPUR - 587 122 MUDHOL TALUK BAGALKOT DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR - SRI ASHOK V MORAB ... APPELLANT (By Sri MANOJ D PUKALE, ADV., & Sri H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADV.,) AND1 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C-I PRESENT ADDRESS: DEVOOR BUILDING, BEHIND GODAVARI HOTEL ATHANI ROAD, BIJAPUR-586 101 2.3.4. :2. : JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C-1 PRESENT ADDRESS: DEVOOR BUILDING, BEHIND GODAVARI HOTEL ATHANI ROAD, BIJAPUR-586 101 INCOME TAX OFFICER W-1 AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SECTOR NO.24 NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587 103 INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD FEROZ KHIMJIBHAI COMPLEX-I, OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL Dr. AMBEDKAR ROAD ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2000KAR2388; 2000(4)KarLJ433
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J.1. Writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties.2. Issue rule.3. The petitioner was elected to the Gulbarga Zilla Panchayat from Gobbur constituency in the elections held in March 1995. The result of the election was published on 30-3-1995 in the Official Gazette. The petitioner's election was not challenged in any Court of law.4. The petitioner received a show-cause notice dated 13/17-7-1998 issued by the 2nd respondent. By the said show-cause notice, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be disqualified under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for holding an office of profit. The petitioner gave his reply to the 2nd respondent.5. The petitioner submitted in his reply that he was working as Junior Clerk in Mahboob Shahi Gulbarga Mills, which was a private textile mill. Thereafter, the mill became the subsidiary unit of the National Textile Corporation (NTC), but the petitioner was not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2001(5)KarLJ604
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. Petitioner in this petition is seeking for the following reliefs on thefollowing facts:'Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction:(a) Quashing the term/condition relating to the requirement of 3 years market standing in respect of drugs sought to be purchased and sought to be offered for purchase in the tender notification dated 19-2-2001 in No. GNS(1)/2/1999-2000(RC 1/2000-2003) issued by respondent 2 and also the condition requiring certain items to be in Alu-Alu Blister found in the corrigendum in Annexure-B issued by respondent 2 and further directing the respondents to consider the tender to be submitted by the petitioner without insisting upon the aforesaid two conditions, and(b) Allow this writ petition with costs and grant such other reliefs as this Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case'.2. Petitioner is a drug manufa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for records from the R-1 of the impugned tender evaluation and all records and bids submitted in relation to the tender notification vide Annexure-A dt. July 2012 and etc. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records from Respondent No.1 pertaining to the impugned tender evaluation and all records relating to tender notification and set aside the impugned tender evaluation and award of tender by Respondent No.1 in favour of Respondent No.2 in respect of tender notification [copy not produced] and etc.) 1. The petitioners in both these petitions i.e., ''LandT'', the petitioner in W.P.No.505/2013 and 'Tata Projects' the petitioner in W.P.No.2535/2013 had responded to the tender notification No.CEGSW/Bidadi/EPC/001 invited by the first respondent (''KPCL'' for short) for award of work for construction of 700 MW +/- 20% combine...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1/137 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE25H DAY OF SEPTEMBER2018PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HONBLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.T.A.No.155/2016 C/W I.T.A.No.458/2013, I.T.A.No.467/2015 I.T.A.No.173/2017, I.T.A.No.172/2017 I.T.A.No.155/2016 Between:1. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax C.R. Building, Queens Road Bangalore-560001.2. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3), Bangalore. Appellants (By Mr. E.R. Indrakumar, Sr. Counsel for Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate) And: M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 1313, 9th Cross, 27th Main, 1st Phase J.P. Nagar, Bangalore-560 078 PAN; AAEFC5505C. (By Mr. A. Shankar & Mr. M. Lava, Advocates) **** Respondent Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 2/137 This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act 1961, praying to:1. Decide the question of law and/or such other questions of law as may be fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE20H DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR COMPA NO.2/2015 BETWEEN1 M/S MALIND PROPERTIES PVT LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT,1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.87-A, PURVA PARKRIDGE, MAHADEVAPURA POST, GARUDACHARPALYA, BANGALORE-560 048 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI DINANAND ADAPALA SRI DINANAND ADAPALA S/O RAMA RAO DASHARATH ADAPALA AGED ABOUT43YEARS SMT. JAYALAKSHMI ADAPALA, W/O DINANAND ADAPALA AGED ABOUT40YEARS M/S INDAUS HOMES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI DINANAND ADAPALA APPELLANTS-2 TO4ARE R/AT:2. 3.4. AND1 2.3.4. 2 NO.87-A, PURVA PARKRIDGE, MAHADEVAPURA POST, GARUDACHARPALYA, BANGALORE-560 048 (By Sri.D.L.N. RAO, SR. ADV., FOR T.S.VENKATESH, ADV.,) ...APPELLANTS SRI MURUGAYAH KANAPATHY S/O KANAPATHY, ADULT BY AGE SMT SANTHI, D/O MUNIANDY, W/O MURUGAYAH KANAPATHY ADULT BY AGE RESPONDENTS-1 & 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1984]150ITR303(KAR); [1984]150ITR303(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These revision petitions under s. 55 of the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act, 1957 (the 'Act'), arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Agrl. I.T., Karnataka, dated March 31, 1979, made under s. 35 of the Act. 2. For the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, the Agrl. ITO made assessments treating the assessee as tenants-in-common. But the Commissioner in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction has held that the assessee should be treated as an association of persons. 3. Challenging the validity of the view taken by the Commissioner, the assessee has approached this court. 4. There was a HUF consisting of Manjappa Gowda, his wife and five children out of whom four were minors. Manjappa Gowda was the manager. The HUF had coffee estate, an areca garden and some paddy lands. Under a deed of partition, these properties were divided by metes and bounds. Manjappa Gowda, however, continued the management of the estate but divided the net income equally among the shares. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR587
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The first two Writ Petitions are public interest petitions, in which the petitioners have challenged the legality of an order of the State Government under which contract for bottling Arrack was granted to respondents 3 to 10 on the ground that a largess involving a total turnover of Rs. 50 crores had been granted to them, in flagrant violation of law and on collateral consideration. In the other petitions the petitioners therein have questioned the legality of the same Government order.2. The background and history of the cases are as follows : (i) Pursuant to the decision of the Government that arrack should be supplied to the consumers in sealed bottles or sachets, to avoid the possibility of adulteration, on 11th April, 1984, the Excise Commissioner invited applications from persons interested in undertaking the bottling of arrack at 18 places in the State most of which are District head quarters. The applicants were required to furnish their names and addresse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : IV(2005)BC310; [2005]126CompCas522(Kar); [2006]65SCL76(Kar)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. All these applications/reports are filed during the winding up proceedings of M/s. Shivmoni Steel Tubes Ltd., a company ordered to be wound up in terms of order dated September 8, 1995, passed by this court in Company Petition No. 49 of 1994, pursuant to the recommendation of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, which recommendation was not disturbed in appeal by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, and the official liquidator attached to the High Court was appointed as liquidator of the company under the provisions of Section 449 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act').2. The winding up proceedings have now reached the stage wherein either the official liquidator or the secured creditors have sold a substantial portion of the assets of the company and the same is realised and the official liquidator had also notified inviting claims from interested persons and the last date for receipt of such claim...
Tag this Judgment!