Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: karnataka value added tax act section 15 Page 7 of about 89,439 results (0.469 seconds)

Nov 18 1994 (HC)

C. Muniyappa Vs. Assistant Commissioner

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1994KAR3652; 1994(5)KarLJ169

bharuka, j1. the petitioner assails the order dated 15.4.1993 passed by the first respondent-assistant commissioner in r.a.no.101/1989-90 ,(annexure-l) on the ground that on the facts, the appeal was not maintainable under the provisions of section 136(2) of the karnataka revenue act, 1964 (for short, the act).2. the foundational facts leading to the controversy may ..... appeal preferred against annexure-k was very much maintainable before the assistant commissioner because section 136(2) of the act on its very language permits preferring of an appeal against certification of entries under section 129(6) of the act. .4. chapter xi of the act read with chapter ix of the karnataka land revenue rules, 1966 deals with the record of rights. under the ..... scheme of the act, any information received by the prescribed authorities either from the persons interested or the statutory ..... authorities as envisaged under section 128 of the act, with regard to the acquisition of any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1998 (HC)

M/S. Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society, Bangalore Vs. Smt ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ143

..... this court considered the report of the joint registrar of co-operative societies in the case of narayana reddy and another v state of karnataka and others. afterconsideration of the aforesaid report and various decisions with reference to each of the case, this court concluded in that case as ..... and to the knowledge of the petitioners no awards have been passed and the petitioners or the predecessors in title have received sections 9 and 10 notices nor section 12 notices with regard to acquisition of their lands. the petitioners were served with a notice issued by the city civil court ..... relevant facts. the irresistable inference flowing from the facts and circumstances of these cases is, whereas the power conferred under the land acquisition act is for acquiring lands for carrying out housing scheme by a housing society, in each of the cases the acquisition of lands is not ..... the expense of the writ petitioners and others similarly situated. the lands, the subject-matter of the present litigation, had been acquired under the act vide final notification issued on 21st of february, 1986. such an acquisition was challenged in various writ petitions including w.p. nos. 17775 and ..... . 8194 of 1987.the writ petitioner in that case had challenged the acquisition made by the state government under the land acquisition act, 1894 (for short the 'act') insofar as it related to her property. similarly, in other writ petitions the respondents herein had challenged the acquisition with respect to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 11 2002 (HC)

Subashchand JaIn Vs. Ganapathi and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2003ACJ1005; ILR2002KAR3355; 2002(4)KarLJ433

..... it requires enhancement.7. per contra sri hegde mulkhand, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the tribunal has awarded a sum of rs. 47,000/-towards injuries and adding a further sum of rs. 20,000/- for pain and sufferings and on this count itself the tribunal has awarded a sum of rs. 67,000/- and as such no ..... nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the period of hospitalisation, medical expenses incurred etc., awarded compensation as under:towards injuries ... ... rs. 47,000/-(comprising of rs. 15,000/- for fracture of femur, rs. 15,000-for fracture of mandible, rs. 7,000/- for fracture of nasal bone, rs. 7,000/- for fracture of noso eluamoidal and rs. 3,000/- for two .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 13 2008 (HC)

Shivanna Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2009CriLJ215; 2008(5)KarLJ551

..... for our consideration is:whether there is any illegality in the judgment and order of the trial court in convicting the accused for the offence under sections 498-a, 307 and 302 of the ipcipcipc?5. it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that except the interested ..... not led any defence evidence. the trial court on appreciation of the material on record convicted the appellant for the offence under sections 498-a, 307 and 302 of the ipcipcipc and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also further sentenced for other offences and ordered ..... the deceased submitted his written complaint (ex. p. 12). as mahadeva was dead by that time p.w. 15 returned to the police station and registered crime no. 108 of 2000 for the offence under sections 498-a, 302 and 307 of the indian penal code, 1860 and sent the complaint (ex. p. 12) ..... 4-6-2000 he arrested the accused and as his clothes were blood-stained, he seized the clothes (m.os 8 and 9) under mahazar (ex. p. 15). on interrogation, the accused volunteered to produce the weapon. he recorded the statement of the accused (ex. p. 16) who led the police and the attesting witnesses ..... accused.during the trial, the prosecution led the evidence by examining p.ws. 1 to 15 and got marked exs. p. 1 to 16 and m.os. 1 to 9. the statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the criminal procedure codecriminal procedure codecriminal procedure code, 1973. he has taken defence of total denial and has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1953 (HC)

Papiahachary Vs. Gurusamappa and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1954Kant149; AIR1954Mys149; (1955)33MysLJ58

..... the plaintiff in o. s. no. 224 of 43-44 and that payment must be deemed to be the payment on behalf of the judgment-debtor for purposes of section 20, limitation act. in the first place this point has not been relied upon in the execution application and in the second place it cannot be said under any circumstances that the ..... as an application for a revival of the previous execution case dismissed for statistical purposes and not as a fresh execution application for purposes of articles 181 and 182, limitation act. we need refer only to -- 'venkate gowda v. mudli setty', 19 mys lj 82 (a) and the case law referred to in it.3. it is contended that since execution .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1955 (HC)

Bangalore City Municipality Vs. Managing Agents, N. Sirur and Co. Ltd. ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1955Kant147; AIR1955Mys147

..... page 245 quotes from a decision the passage: 'every bye-law is a law, and is obligatory to all persons bound by it, that is within its jurisdiction as any act of parliament, only with this difference, that a bye-law is liable to have its validity brought in question'. in -- 'white v. morley', (1899) 2 qb 34 (a) at p ..... not be repugnant to the law and the bye-law should not be repugnant to the rule or the law. the rule cannot be attacked as being repugnant to the act or as being in excess of the power of the government to make it but the bye-law provides for what is beyond the limits laid down by the rule ..... for any purpose' in the bye-law after the word 'power' is not found in the rule. it was notified in ex. a dated 15-1-1940 that the bye-laws would come into force from 15-2-1940. long prior to this date, the defendants started the mills; and had electric installation provided for working the mills. the question therefore is ..... 'instal' anything means establishing it and has reference to the stage or times when it comes into existence, to the initial act and not continuance of what is done previously. the same word in a similar provision of the madras municipalities act has been interpreted to relate to what is done at the inception. see -- 'muthu balu chettiar v. chairman madura municipality .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 1959 (HC)

Rudrappa Fakirappa Sankannavar Vs. Mallangouda and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1960Kant227; AIR1960Mys227; ILR1960KAR336

..... at any rate it became an excess payment on that day and the suit having been instituted on 16-2-1950 the same is within time. article 82 of the 'act' reads as follows:'by a surety against a co-surety three years. when the surety pays anything in excess of his own share.' according to sri malimath, the payment made ..... . the present suit was filed on 16-2-1950.(3) the courts below have held that the suit is barred by limitation. they have held that article 82 of the 'act' governs the facts of the case. this conclusion is not open to challenge. but the point in controversy is, whether the cause of action arose on 22-11-1946 when ..... (1) the scope of article 82 of the indian limitation act (which shall be hereinafter called the 'act') comes up for consideration in this appeal.(2) the facts proved are: the second defendant borrowed in 1926 a sum of rs. 2,000/- from the gajanan urban co-operative .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 12 1963 (HC)

Mahadevappa Vs. H.P. Madaverappa

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 1964CriLJ601

..... against the petitioner in c. c. no. 1564 of 1962 on the file of the learned special first class magistrate, nanjangud, for an offence punishable under section 500 of the indian penal code. in his complaint he has cited sri warayanarao and sri venkatarao as his witnesses. the prosecution case is that in the ..... hearing or a trip. of a suit knows that he is' a necessary witness and would be called as a witness in the suit but critiques to act in an active capacity as counsel and gives evidence without cancelling the vakalat, such conduct is improper and deserves condemnation.i think, neither sri venkatarao nor ..... a special bench of the madras high court in re: c. s. venkatachariar air 1942 mad 691 (sb). that was a case under the legal practitioners' act. the special bench laid down.that a person who is appearing as counsel' should not give evidence as a witness. if in the-course of the proceedings, ..... and if any advocate chooses to ignore this rule of professional etiquette, the i courts will have to protect the profession by refus-1 ing them permission to act in that manner. in-mannarganemperor air 1925 mad 1153, devadoss, j. laid down that:it is against the etiquette of the bar that a counsel should ..... no authority is needed in support of that contention. but the real question for decision in this case is whether the court should permit a person to act as a witness for one party and as counsel for the other, would be highly incongruous for an i advocate to appear in the witness-box at .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 15 1962 (HC)

S. Brahmasuriah Vs. Amba Bai Alias Sundara Bai

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1964Kant4; AIR1964Mys4; (1963)1MysLJ238

..... compensation for wrongful attachment and in which the defendant made an unsuccessful application for getting the attachment set aside. when he however claimed compensation under section 95 of the code of civil procedure, the learned chief justice thought that the order in the suit making the attachment absolute constituted an insurmountable ..... as it deems a reasonable compensation to the defendant for the expenses or injury caused to him: provided that a court shall not award, under this section, an amount exceeding the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction. (2) an order determining any such application shall bar any suit for compensation in respect of ..... that the disposal of a suit in which an application for compensation under section 95 has been made cannot divest the court of its power to deal with that application which is, it is clear, the duty of that court.15. i do not also find any substance in the argument that there ..... is anything in the conduct of the defendant which leads to the inference that he did not press his application under section 95. what the defendant did was to deposit the ..... made an application for compensation under section 95 of the code of civil procedure which was dismissed by both the courts below on the ground that it was not maintainable. the suit was brought by the respondent on a promissory note executed by the defendant on may 15, 1960 and in the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 1986 (HC)

Maruthi Enterprises Vs. Muniyanjamma and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1987Kant264

..... contingencies to which they relate. accordingly, where certain orders are passed in the suit and the suit is thereafter disposed of, an application under this section challenging those orders as being without jurisdiction and for restoration of the suit is incompetent, there being a specific remedy under the code by way of ..... on the ground of coercion, there being a suitable remedy by way of a suit. a court cannot make use of the special provisions of this section where the applicant has his remedy provided elsewhere in the code and has neglected to avail himself of it.'11. it has been laid down in ..... 10 when an application under that rule has been rejected. if relief can properly be obtained in a separate suit, there is no justification for invoking sec. 151, and the court will not in its inherent jurisdiction amend a consent decree on the ground of fraud; unless the fraud is a fraud upon ..... with their opinion because it would run contrary to the express provisions contained in o. 47 r. 1 c.p.c.16. the courts cannot act in a dictatorial manner. the courts are bound to follow the law passed by the legislatures. if the courts were to ignore the provisions of law ..... order of rejecting the plaint. if such requests are to be granted, then the remedy provided-by the civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code for appeal would be meaningless.15. then the question would arise as to why an application of the present nature should not be treated as a review application under o. 47 .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //