Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-31-2005
Reported in : ILR2005KAR2210; [2006]144STC59(Kar)
H.L. Dattu, J.1. The appellant is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and supply of Automated Teller Machines (ATM's for short). In view of the configuration and for the purpose for which is put to use, the appellant company is of the view that the sale of ATM's is eligible to single point levy of tax under Sec 5(3)(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'Act, 1957'). However, in order to have the views of the department in this regard, in particular, the Advance Ruling Authority constituted by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in exercise of his powers under Section 4 of the Act, the appellant company had filed an application before the Advance Ruling Authority in Form 54 as provided under Rule 27-E (1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 ('Rules' for short), seeking clarification on the rate of tax applicable under the Act on sale of Automated Teller Machines.2. In response to the notice of the hearing issued ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-27-2005
Reported in : 2005(6)KarLJ429
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. Since all these writ appeals are directed against the same common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15th April, 2004 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 3832 to 3849 of 2004, all these writ appeals were clubbed, heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Writ Appeal Nos. 3777 to 3794 of 2004 are preferred by the State of Karnataka, Writ Appeal Nos. 2627, 2740 to 2755 and 3618 of 2004 are preferred by the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC), whereas Writ Appeal Nos. 2792, 2793 and 3135 to 3150 of 2004 are preferred by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).3. M/s. Gokula Education Foundation, Bangalore (for short, 'GEF), which is one of the respondents in all these appeals, filed Writ Petition Nos. 3832 to 3849 of 2004 in this Court for quashing of the allotment order dated 13-3-2003 in No. BDA/DS-1/CA/Sy. No. 20/RMV/II/II]72003-04 and consequential possession certificate bearing No. BDA/DS-1/Sy. No. 20/RMV/IMIJ/2003-0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-15-2005
Reported in : ILR2005KAR3710; 2005(4)KarLJ481
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. These batches of writ petitions are filed by the owners of agricultural and/or converted lands, house sites, residential/farm houses, companies and builders and others questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the acquisition of vast extent of lands for a development scheme called ARKAVATHI LAYOUT. The main features of the layout, as mentioned in the report of the Engineering Department of the BDA, are:(a) Total extent of land required : 2750 acres(b) Proposed residential sites : 28600(c) Civic Amenity sites : 50(d) Commercial sites : 150(e) Total estimation : Rs. 933.47 Crores(f) Total amount received : Rs. 981.36 Crores(g) Saving : Rs. 47.89 Crores(h) No. of villages covered : 16(i) No. of applicants : 2,32,000The details of various dimensions of the residential sites, the extent of land used for various purposes such as residential sites, park and play grounds, civic amenities, roads etc., the amount that would be realised from the sites, the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-25-2005
Reported in : ILR2006KAR318; 2006(1)KarLJ1
N. Kumar, J.1. The appellants-Bangalore Development Authority (for short, 'the BDA'), the State of Karnataka, the former Chief Minister Sri S.'M. Krishna and two others have challenged in this batch of eight writ appeals the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the acquisition proceedings pertaining to 'ARKAVATHI LAYOUT' as well as the declaration made to the effect that the BDA has no jurisdiction to frame developmental schemes in Bangalore Metropolitan Area and against other reliefs granted in the writ petitions. Some writ petitions have also been filed challenging the acquisition of land for the formation of the 'Arkavathi Layout' on the grounds, which have been upheld by the learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment under appeal. Since identical questions of law and fact arise for consideration in the writ appeals and the writ petitions they are taken up for consideration together and are being disposed of by this common order. The facts leading to the present proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-20-2005
Reported in : [2006]133CompCas160(Kar); 2006(1)KarLJ386
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. The defendants are in appeal, challenging the grant of an order of temporary injunction restraining them from manufacturing or selling or in any manner dealing with any product similar or identical to a product of the plaintiff, respondent herein, known as Turbostop, a contoured impact pad which is used in steel plants to withstand the impact of molten steel that is poured into a vessel called. Tundish, in casting and processing of steel. The contoured impact pad prevents the molten steel from perforating the tundish and enables the controlled containment and flow of steel.2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the Trial Court for convenience.3. The facts of the case as narrated by the parties are as follows.-The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and was established in the year 1958. It is engaged in the manufacture of specialty chemicals and allied products pertaining to Foundry and steel industry. It has its own resea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-29-2005
Reported in : ILR2005KAR3973
S.R. Nayak, J.1. Whether rejection of the tender of the appellant and acceptance of the tender of the contesting respondents 4 to 6 for awarding the contract of repairing the Distribution Transformers of the erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board, which is now succeeded by the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (for short, BESCOM) is vitiated on account of any factor/circumstance, which would attract the wrath of the postulates of Article 14 of the Constitution of Inda, Viz., fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness, is the question that arises for decision in this writ appeal.2. The case of the appellant-petitioner is as follows: The appellant is a Small Scale Industrial Unit established in the year 1982 and has been carrying on business of repairing of Distribution Transformers. The Appellant has repaired more than 16,000 Distribution Transformers of 25 KVA, 63 KVA and 100 KVA capacity and has installed them in various locations both in urban and Rural BESCOM areas. The appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-21-2005
Reported in : ILR2005KAR2406; 2005(5)KarLJ596
ORDERS. Abdul Nazcer, J.1. The petitioner had joined A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangalore (for Short College) for the study of Masler of Denial Surgery Course ('MDS' for Short) in oral and Maxillofacial Surgery subject for the academic year 2001-2002. The College is affiliated to 2nd respondent -University. The Petitioner appeared for the MDS Examination held by the University in September 2004 and failed in the said examination. He has secured 190 marks out of 400 marks in theory paper and 150 out of 300 in practicals and Viva-Voce put together. As per the relevant ordinance of the University, the minimum marks for a pass are 50% in theory and 50% in practical including clinical and viva-voce. The Petitioner is short by 10 marks in theory paper for a pass. He filed an application for re-totaling of his marks. The result of re-totaling was informed on 14.02.2005 with no change of marks. On 15.02.2005 he filed a representation to the University (as per Annexure '...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-04-2005
Reported in : [2005(106)FLR170]; 2005(2)KarLJ47; (2005)IILLJ408Kant
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Petitioner joined the services of the Central Bank of India ('Bank' for short) as a Clerk in the year 1966 and thereafter he was promoted as an Officer in Junior Management Grade, Scale I and designated as Sub-Accountant with effect from 31-8-1984. While he was working as Sub-Accountant at Bellary Branch of the Bank, he was kept under suspension by issuing a memo dated 17-8-1991 in contemplation of departmental enquiry proceedings for the alleged financial irregularities said to have been committed by him while working as Branch Manager at Pattadakal Branch of the respondent-Bank.2. The Disciplinary Authority of the Bank had issued a charge memo dated 18-4-1992, inter alia alleging two charges against the petitioner. The first charge is that while working as in-charge of bills purchase department of the Bank, petitioner had purchased on various dates cheques/withdrawals on various outstanding branches and had not ensured their realisations which were ultimately tu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-18-2005
Reported in : ILR2005KAR5819; 2006(2)KarLJ579
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner aggrieved by the cancellation of the allotment of a site by the 1st respondent, and the subsequent allotment of the very same site to the 2nd respondent, followed by the execution of a lease-cum-sale agreement, is before this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction.2. Briefly stated, facts not in dispute are:(i) The Petitioner is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, incorporated on 07.12.1990 with the objects, preaching Islamic principles, promote education, establish madarasa, amongst other objects as set out in the Memorandum, Annexure-B.(ii) The layout plan Annexure D for formation of a residential layout in the name of 'Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia'. was accorded sanction by the State of Karnataka, at the instance of the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board, for short CITB, on 27.01.1987. The 1st respondent authority was constituted on 25.09.1988, consequent upon the notification, duly gazatted, extending the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-13-2005
Reported in : (2005)196CTR(Kar)585; [2005]279ITR226(KAR); [2005]279ITR226(Karn)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Since in all these references the dispute between the assessee and the Revenue is of identical nature and they arise out of the same facts but pertains to different assessment years, namely, 1977-78 to 1986-87, we intend to dispose of these reference cases by this common judgment.2. A few relevant facts need to be noticed in order to appreciate the contentions raised and canvassed in these reference cases. They are :The assessee is Sri Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wadiyar (Minor HUF). The assessment years are 1977-78 to 1985-86. Bangalore Palace was the private property of late Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar, the former ruler of the princely State of Mysore. The total extent of Bangalore Palace is 554 acres or 1837365.36 sq. mt. It comprises of residential units, non-residential units and land appurtenant thereto, roads and masonary structures along the contour and the vacant land. The vacant land measures 11,66,377.34 sq. mt. Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar expired o...
Tag this Judgment!