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
..... on record that the bda has deposited the cost of acquisition and agreed to pay further costs, if any, as provided in section 36(3) of bda act. the deputy commissioner has not transferred the lands to bda. from the original files it is seen that notices under sections 9 and 10 of the l.a. act have been merely issued. it is ..... has or has not, in respect to the subject-matter of the statute or in the method of enacting it, transgressed the limits of its constitutional powers. such transgression may be patent, manifest or direct but it may also be disguised, covert and indirect and it is to this latter class of cases that the expression 'colorable legislation' has been ..... :olga tellis and ors. v. bombay municipal corporation and ors. : air1986sc180 :'33. article 39(a) of the constitution, which is a directive principle of state policy, provides that the state shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. article ..... been referred to in the decisions of this court in india cement limited v. state of tamil nadu, civil appeal no. 62(n) of 1970 (sc)'.javed and ors. v. state of haryana and ors. : 2008(227)elt497(sc) :'10. under article 243-g of the constitution the legislature ..... 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 : .....
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 : 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 : Aug-03-2005
Reported in : 2005(6)KarLJ467
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. Writ petition is by persons who claim that they are in possession of an extent of 2 acres of land in Survey No. 104 of Anantapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and who are aggrieved by the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner which order came to be affirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act').2. What is principally urged is that the provisions of the Act were not attracted at all to the situation in which the petitioners were placed; that the petitioners are claiming possession of the land from the year 1971; that there was no interference or disruption of possession and enjoyment of the land; that in respect of subject-matter land, the respondent 3 had instituted a suit in O.S. No. 88 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore Rur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-13-2005
Reported in : ILR2005KAR3052; 2005(5)KarLJ414; (2006)ILLJ344Kant
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioners in all these petitions are before me challenging the notification bearing No. LD:15:LWA:2001 dtd: 1-8-2001 (Annexure-O).2. Facts in WP No. 28677-78/2001;The first and second petitioners are trade unions. Third and the fourth petitioners are employed in the canteen run and maintained by the respondent/management. Petitioners say that the management of the industries preferred employment on contract basis and that would facilitate them to exploit the workmen in terms of cheap labour. The system of contract labour has been considered as a baneful and pernicious system and has kindled the judicial conscience since the workmen would have no security of service and their wages have often been far below the minimum wages prescribed by the State Government. In order to arrest this trend the Central Government enacted the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short 'the Act'). The primary object of the Act is to abolish the system of contr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-13-2005
Reported in : [2006]130CompCas705(Kar); ILR2006KAR255
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner a Company, for short the Transferor company' incorporated on 20th October 1995 under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'Act') having its registered office at No. 15-16, Vayudooth Chambers, 4th Floor, Trinity junction, M.G. Road, Bangalore-560001 has presented this petition seeking sanction of the scheme of amalgamation Exhibit-'E'.2. The main objects of the Transferor company is to carry on business of providing long term finance to any person or persons, firm, company, corporation, society, association of persons on such terms and conditions as the company may deem fit for the purpose of construction or purchase of house/flat in India for residential purpose, amongst other objects set out in the Memorandum and Articles of association Exhibit-'B'.3. The Authorised share capital of the Transferor company is Rs. 10 crores divided into 1 crore Equity shares of Rs. 10/- each while the issued, subscribed and paid up share capital is Rs. 10 crores d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-27-2005
Reported in : 2005(6)KarLJ353
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore (for short, 'the Tribunal'), dated 13th September, 2000 passed in O.A. No. 981 of 1999. In the said original application, the petitioner herein sought for quashing of the communication of adverse remarks under various heading as incorporated in the letter from the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, dated 9-12-1997, addressed to him and marked as Annexure-Al. The Tribunal by its order impugned in this writ petition has dismissed the original application with costs of Rs. 3,000/- payable to the second respondent, namely, Sri C. Dinakar, IPS.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows.-The petitioner was selected, to the Indian Police Service in the year 1976 and allocated to Karnataka Cadre. The petitioner has held several posts under the Karnataka State and the Central Government. In the month of April 1997, the petitioner was promoted ...
Tag this Judgment!