Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2007)10VST330(Karn); 2007(4)KCCRSN253; 2007(3)AIRKarR29; 2007-08(5)VATToday33(DB)
ORDER1. State of Karnataka is before us aggrieved by the orders passed in STA Nos. 279/1999, 280/1999, 323, 444, 497 and 498/2001 and 296/2003 dated 27.12.2003 in this revision petition.2. Facts as narrated in the revision petition are as under:Respondent is a Company registered under the Companies Act. It is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Acts'). Respondent was earlier known as Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited (Lipton Division) and was amalgamated with the respondent Company w.e.f. 21.3.1997. Respondent has established a new industrial unit engaged in the production of blended packed teas at Dharwad since 8.9.1992 and 6.5.1993 respectively. Respondent availed sales tax exemption benefit for a period of six years from the date of commencement of commercial production in terms of the scheme evolved by the Government vide Government Order dated 27.9.1990 and sales tax exemption Notification dated 19.6.1991. 3. The Assistant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008(3)AIRKarR291; AIR2008NOC2137; 2008AIHC2457(Kar); 2008(5)KLJ220
V. Jagannathan, J.1. This appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs before the trial court. The suit filed by the plaintiffs for dissolution of the firm viz., M/s. High Clere Stud, and Agricultural Farm and for putting the plaintiffs in separate possession of the portion of the land to be awarded to the deceased Gopirathnam and for accounts of the farm, from the data of constitution of the firm, till the date of the suit and for costs and other reliefs came to be dismissed and hence, aggrieved by the said decision of the trial court, the plaintiffs are before this court.2. The first appellant is the wife of late Gopirathnam and appellants 2 and 3 are the daughters of the above said first appellant and Gopirathnam. Gopirathnam was one of the partners of the 4th respondent M/s. High Clere stud and Agricultural Farm. The other partners were the respondents 1 to 3. Respondents 5 to 7 are the purchasers of some of the suit properties.3. A deed of partnership came into existence on 1.1.1966 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR1962; 1987(3)KarLJ571
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. This C.R.P. is preferred by the plaintiffs against the finding recorded on 30-10-1987 by the Additional Civil Judge, Chikodi, in O.S. No. 18 of 1985 on Issue No. 1 in the negative. Issue No. 1 reads thus:Whether the Court fee paid is proper?2. The trial Court has held that the Court fee paid is not proper and the plaintiffs have to pay Court fee in accordance with the provisions of Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Accordingly, the trial Court has directed the petitioners to pay a deficit Court fee of Rs. 3,561/-.3. The plaintiffs-petitioners have sought for the following reliefs :'(A) Declaring that the decree passed in O.S. No. 125/ 81 on 17-2-1982 in favour of the defendant-1 against the plaintiff in this Court is illegal, null and void, ultra vires and without jurisdiction and not binding on the plaintiff;(B) Consequently restraining the defendant-1 and persons on its behalf by perpetual ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR3374; 1988(3)KarLJ437
Shyamasundar, J.1. Regular Second Appeal 860 of 1978 is by the plaintiff in O.S.210 of 1967, whereas Regular Second Appeals 883 and 964 of 1978 are by the defendants in O.S. 10 of 1970. A common point that arises in these appeals is the question of law touching their right to the suit property being urban property from which the occupants - the defendants are not sought to be dislodged by the plaintiffs.2. The question that arises for consideration in all these appeals is whether having regard to the case of the plaintiffs in all these cases, they ought to have been relegated to proceedings under the Rent Control Act and the Courts should not have investigated the controversy between them in the suits before the Courts below, The point with 3 little ramification and elaboration is as follows :In all these cases, the plaintiffs found their title to the suit properties being threatened in one case namely R.S.A. 860/78 being a house property in K.G.F and in the other case being an open si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1992]75CompCas228(Kar); ILR1990KAR3405; 1990(3)KarLJ84
H.G. Balakrishna, J.1. The following are the material facts of the case in which the petitioner is seeking the quashing of the decision of the Central Government contained in a letter dated April 5, 1982 (annexure F), and the decision of the State Government embodied in letter dated August 12, 1982 (annexure H), and for a declaration that the grasilene unit belonging to the petitioner is entitled to the subsidy under annexure A to the extent of Rs. 15 lakhs along with a direction to the respondents to pay the same to the petitioner with interest at 18 per cent. per annum from January 27, 1979, which is the date of the petitioner's application till payment thereof.2. The petitioner, which is a public company, set up a unit called grasilene division in the year 1976 in an industrially backward area of Karnataka at Kumarapatnam in Dharwar District. The said unit went into commercial production in July, 1977. The petitioner-company had complied with all the prescribed formalities for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR2558; 1994(1)KarLJ103
Vasanthakumar, J.1. These Regular First Appeals are directed against the common Judgment and decree dated 18.7.1985, passed in O.S.No. 659/81 by the Court of the IX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore.Parties are described as in the original suit. Regular First Appeal No. 387/86 is filed by the Second Defendant in the original cause and Regular First Appeal 513/86 is filed by the 1st- defendant Company. .2. Facts to briefly state are:-M/s. Delite Enterprises a registered partnership firm carrying on business as Builders and Contractors at Bombay who is the plaintiff was approached by one Estate Agent by name M. Hussain stationed at Bangalore and was appraised about the feasibility of development of flats in the suit schedule property belonging to M/s. Happy Home Builders a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at Bangalore which had the advantages of having obtained a sanctioned plan, sital value ad measuring 23019 sq. ft. and the sanctioned plan relat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1992Kant28; 1991(2)KarLJ58
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. These writ petitions are by a few of the Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas of Zilla Parishads challenging the validity of the Karnataka Ordinance No. 2 of 1991 promulgated on 1st February, 1991. By this Ordinance Sec. 167 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (for short, 'the Act') was amended by deleting the words 'not less than two-thirds of found in sub-section (3) thereof. By this amendment the Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas of Zilla Parishads could be removed by a resolution passed by a simple majority of the members instead of the earlier requirement of two-thirds majority. 2. The Act was enacted in the year 1983, but it was enforced in the year 1985. Various local governments were constituted under the Act such as Mandal Panchayats (for the villages), Taluk Panchayat Santithis at the Taluk level and Zilla Parishads for the District level, excepting the areas covered by the Town Municipali...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1990]79STC442(Kar)
1. All these writ petitions can be dealt with under a common judgment since they question the validity of section 5B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, introduced by the Amendment Act No. 27 of 1985, with effect from 1st April, 1986. 2. We propose to note the facts in Writ Petitions Nos. 2064 to 2067 of 1988 : The petitioners are civil engineering contractors engaged in civil construction work in the State of Karnataka. In order to bring the activity of works contract within the purview of power to levy sales tax by the respective State, amendments were introduced extending the definition of 'sale' under article 366(29-A) of the Constitution of India. Following the constitutional amendment, the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was amended by the Amendment Act No. 27 of 1985. In pursuance of the amendment, the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules were also amended by the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Rules, 1986. As a result of the aforesaid amendments, the activity of the petitioner in the nature of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1992]75CompCas712(Kar); 1989(1)KarLJ52
Navadgi, J. 1. This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated August 31, 1977,made by the First Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, the appellant, and Smt. B. Kusuma T. Rai, the respondent herein were the defendant and the plaintiff respectively in the trial court. The appellant and the respondent in this appeal, for the sake of convenience, would be referred to in the course of this judgment as the defendant and the plaintiff respectively. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 6 of 1975, seeking a decree directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000 as due under the policy bearing No. S. 39675124, a sum of Rs. 5,385 towards interest on Rs. 30,000 from January 6, 1972, to January 3, 1975, at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and a sum of Rs. 15 towards the cost of registered notice. 3. The facts on which the plaintiff founded her reliefs are these : B.S. Thimmappa Rai (hereinafter referred to as 'the assured'),the husban...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1991]72CompCas211(Kar)
P.P. Bopanna, J.1. By my order dated August 11, 1988 (See Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar v. Venkateswara Real Estate Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. [1990] 68 Comp Cas 216 (kar)), the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Company Petitions Nos. 32 and 67 of 1987 was overruled and the petitions were posted for grant of interim relief on September 2, 1988. Since the grant of interim relief is closely connected with the question of admission of these petitions, I have heard learned counsel on both these points. It may also be noticed that my order dated August 11, 1988 (See Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar v. Venkateswara Real Estate Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. (1990) 68 Comp Cas 216 (kar)), is pending in appeal in O.S.A. No. 10 of 1988 and, in the absence of any order by the Division Bench staying the operation of that order, there is no Bar for this court to here these petitions on the question of admission and interim relief.2. Company petitions Nos. 32 and 67 of 1987 ar...
Tag this Judgment!