Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: karnataka Year: 2005 Page 6 of about 95 results (0.007 seconds)

Aug 04 2005 (HC)

Shivaling and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-04-2005

orderk. ramanna, j.1. this writ petition is filed by the petitioners against the order dated 10/5/1977 passed by the land tribunal, hukeri in case no.tnc/sr.no. 3487 and in no.tnc/sr.no. 2785 dated 10/5/1977 as per annexure-a and b' in favour of one bhima dungappa sukanahalli and nagappa satyappa, granting occupancy rights in their favour in respect of land sy. no. 127/9 a measuring 1 acre 15 guntas and land bearing no.l27/9b measuring 2 acres respectively. both the lands are in ankale of hukeri taluk.2. the main grounds urged by the petitioner no. 1 andl.rs of petitioner no. 2 are that, they have filed form no. 1 for grant of occupancy rights in their favour on 26/6/1983 as per annexure-c in respect of the aforesaid lands as tenants when inam abolition act 1977 was in force. but the respondents-4 to 7 filed form no. 7 in the year 1974 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land of shree swami jagadguru shankaracharya math as tenants. but the tribunal without verifying the records granted occupancy rights in favour of bhima dungappa sukanahalli and nagappa satyappa as per annexure-a and b. since the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the said lands, they have invested huge amounts to dig the bore well and have made it fit for cultivation. therefore, the petitioners could not be parties before the tribunal along with other applications filed by respondents-4 to 7. therefore, the tribunal ought to have clubbed the applications form no. 7 filed by other .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2005 (HC)

G. Jayaram Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-13-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR1963; 2005(5)KarLJ1

s.r. nayak, j.1. a short question that arises for our consideration and decision in this appeal is whether acquisition of 1 acre 3 guntas of land comprised in sy.no. 122 of kodihalli, varthur hobli, bangalore south taluk (hereinafter shortly referred to as the 'schedule land) belonging to the appellant herein for a public purpose, to wit, for golf-cum-hotel resort near airport should be sustained notwithstanding the fact that the acquisition of 38 acres 21 guntas of land acquired under the same notification has been condemned by a division bench of this court as fraud on power and tainted by malafide. the acquiring authority and the beneficiary of the acquisition would contend that the acquisition of the schedule land should be sustained notwithstanding the quashing of the notifications by the division bench of this court with regard to 38 acres 21 guntas of land, on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the appellant in approaching this court. on the other hand, it is the contention of the appellant that he has shown sufficient cause for the delay in approaching this court for the relief alternatively, it was contended by the appellant that even assuming that the delay is not satisfactorily explained by the appellant, that circumstance should not come in the way of this court quashing the land acquisition proceedings with regard to the schedule land, because, this court has already quashed the acquisition of larger extent of land measuring 38 acres 21 guntas acquired .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 13 2005 (HC)

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wadiyar

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 on 23rd sept., 1974. there was a dispute with regard to wealth-tax assessments of sri jayachamarajendra wodeyar pertaining to asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1976-77. after the death of sri jayachamarajendra wodeyar, his son sri srikantadatta wodeyar applied to settlement commission to get the dispute settled with regard to valuation of bangalore palace and the same came to be decided on 29th sept., 1988 for the assessment years namely, 1967-68 to 1976-77. the valuation date was 31st march of each calendar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 17 2005 (HC)

P. Keshava Murthy Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secret ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-17-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR4772; 2006(3)KarLJ271

orderk.l. manjunath, j.1. i have heard the counsel for the review petitioner and govt. advocate for respondent-1 and counsel for respondents-2 to 4.2. the petitioner herein had filed writ petition in no. 41864/2002 challenging the endorsement refusing to pay the compensation to the petitioner in respect of acquisition of 4 acres of land situated in sy. no. 28 of doddasanne village of devanahali taluk. the endorsement further reads that compensation would be paid to the petitioner provided he gets a declaratory relief from the competent civil court. challenging the said endorsement, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court contending that one rudramuni was the owner of 4 acres of land in sy. no. 28 of doddasanne village of devanahalli taluk and he had purchased the same under a sale deed dated 15.9.84. since the date of purchase, he was in lawful possession of the same. according to him. his vendor rudramuni had been granted this land under a grant certificate. it was the case of the petitioner that all the revenue records were standing in the name of the vendor prior to purchase of the property and subsequently mutation entries and other revenue entries were transferred to the petitioner. he has also produced the saguvali chit issued in favour of his vendor by the revenue authorities as per annexure-e to the writ petition. a notification under section 28(1) of the karnataka industrial area development act, 1966 was issued on 8.6.96 proposing to acquire the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 2005 (HC)

Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-09-2005

Reported in : (2007)8VST519(Karn)

orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. this writ petition is being heard at length on several days, including on august 25, 2005 and while adjourning the matter for further hearing, i had noticed the following position:2. writ petition is by a company which is a dealer under the provisions of the karnataka sales tax act, 1957 (for short, 'the act').3. the petitioner in the course of its activity purchases iron ore from the miners, some of whom may also be registered dealers, some may not be, and claims that the iron ore is consumed for the production of pig iron which is the end-product in its manufacturing unit and sold.4. iron ore is 'goods' within the meaning of the phrase as it occurs under the act and is subjected to tax at the first purchase point in terms of section 5(3)(b) of the act read with item 1 of the third schedule to the act. the rate of tax for the relevant period, i.e., from april 1, 2001 to march 31, 2002 with which alone we are concerned, was at 10 per cent of the purchase turnover.5. the petitioner wanted to make benefits as was available to such of those manufacturers who have the units in the state and who produce finished products from out of raw materials which are subjected to tax in terms of the provisions of section 5a of the act.6. it is the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner has been availing of such concessions under section 5a of the act for several years and that the provisions of section 5a had also undergone many legislative corrections; .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 2005 (HC)

Balaji Computers and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Prl. ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-10-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR1325; [2006]147STC98(Kar)

orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. these writ petition are by persons who are registered as dealers under the provisions of the karnataka sales tax act, 1961 (for short the 'act'). petitioners are aggrieved by the notices issued to them by the assessing authority invoking the powers under section 12-a of the act proposing to re-open of the concluded assessments in respect of the 1st petitioner for the year 2001-2002 and in respect of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners for the year 2002-2003.2. the proposition notices indicates that insofar as the levy of turnover tax relating to computer, computer parts and computer peripherals is concerned, there was some escapement from the turnover that was subject to levy; that it was required to be brought to tax by re-opening the assessment and has indicated the proposed amount of tax after such re-opening etc.3. petitioners have approached this court being perturbed by these notices, where under the assessments that had been concluded for the respective years are sought to be re-opened.4. the re-opening of the assessments in terms of the notices issued during january 2005 is said to be on the basis of a circular no. clr.cr. 157/2004-2005 dated 31.12.2004 issued by the commissioner of commercial taxes (copy produced as annexure-d to the petition), where under the commissioner has issued directions to all the assessing authorities, that the authorities had not understood the scope and effect of the exemption notification that had been issued in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 2005 (HC)

Veeresh Vs. Siraj Ahmed and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-21-2005

Reported in : 2005ACJ1163

s.b. majage, j.1. the appellant-claimant was working as a cleaner in the lorry bearing no. cra 2525, covered by insurance policy issued by respondent no. 2, insurance company. he met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of said lorry and sustained injuries in the course of employment under respondent no. 1, owner of said vehicle. so he claimed compensation from the respondents. after inquiry, the commissioner has awarded compensation to the appellant-claimant but, having held that the insurance policy was not in force on the date of accident, dismissed the claim against the insurance company and directed the respondent no. 1, owner, alone to pay the compensation awarded. it is against the said order and award, the claimant is before this court.2. it was vehemently argued for the claimant that since the policy was valid and in force from 7.1.2003 to 6.1.2004, the insurance company cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation even though the insurance policy was given effect from 3.11.2003 (i.e., after the accident) in favour of the respondent no. 1 due to transfer of the vehicle from previous owner, namely, ishwar m. hampanavar. in that connection, reliance has been placed on section 157 of the motor vehicles act and decision of the apex court in the case of g. govindan v. new india assurance co. ltd., 1999 acj 781 (sc), besides decisions of this court in the cases of national insurance co. ltd. v. lakshmi, 1997 acj 7 (karnataka) and mahabala v. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 2005 (HC)

Mungappa and anr. Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-22-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR4174; 2006(4)KarLJ114

ordershylendra kumar, j.1. these two writ petitions are by brothers, who had claimed as the legal heirs of one nagamma, a person belonging to scheduled caste community and in whose favour an extent of 1 acre of land in sy.no. 155 of hoodi village k.r. puram hobli, bangalore had been granted in terms of the sanction order dated 25-6-1952, issued by the revenue commissioner in no. d.dis.c1.dr.177/51-52. the sanction order was one sanctioning the grant of land to an extent of 9 acres 39 guntas in the said survey number to nine persons mentioned in the order, who belong to adi-karnataka community, i.e, an extent of 1 acre in favour of each person, in accordance with the rules governing the grant of land to persons belonging to depressed class.2. this sanction order was followed by an individual grant order dated 30-3-1954 in favour of the said nagamma, granting her one acre of land subject to the condition that the land should not be alienated permanently, as the grant was free of cost, and further a saguvali chit was issued on 23-10-1954, where under also, the condition that the land cannot be alienated by the granted permanently had been mentioned.3. it is such land that had been sold by the daughter of the original grantee smt. byramma in terms of the sale deed dated 16-4-1968 in favour of one ramanujalu reddy-father of the third respondent. it is in respect of this transaction, the petitioner in wp no. 31938 of 2004 had filed an application to the assistant commissioner under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 2005 (HC)

Ravikirthi Shetty and ors. Vs. Jagathpala Shetty (Deceased) by L.Rs

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-13-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Kant194; 2005(2)KarLJ32

b.s. patil, j.1. in the suit for partition brought by jagathpala shetty (plaintiff) against his brother ravikirthi shetty (defendant 1) and his two sisters vijayamma and nagarathnamma (defendants 2 and 3 respectively), the court below by the judgment and decree dated 22-10-1993 decreed the suit. being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants 1 to 3 have preferred this regular first appeal.2. for the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their ranks obtained in the court below. few facts, which are essential for the purpose of disposal of this appeal may be set out as under:3. the plaintiff-jagathpala shetty and defendant 1-ravikirthi shetty are the sons of late raju shetty. defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of late raju shetty. the relationship between the parties is not disputed. the case of the plaintiff being that b schedule properties to the memorandum of plaint were acquired by the late father of the plaintiff and the defendants under a registered partition deed of the year 1927 and that upon the death of raju shetty who died inter-state on 15-2-1980 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as the sole surviving heirs, himself and the defendants succeeded to the estate of the deceased. the plaintiff has further contended that defendant 1 who was his elder brother and was an influential man both in the family and in the locality managed to bring about a document purporting to be a bequest by his father of the property in favour of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2005 (HC)

Venkappa Hunashikatti and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-04-2005

Reported in : 2005(2)KarLJ201

orderr. gururajan, j.1. writ petition no. 31479 of 2004 is filed by venkappa hunasikatti challenging the order of the land tribunal dated 15-6-2004 at annexure-c in the case on hand. writ petition nos. 33646 to 33648 of 2004 are filed by suresh ambiger and two others challenging this very order. both the petitions are taken up together for disposal.2. facts in w.p. no. 31479 of 2004: petitioner's father somappa hunasikatti filed form 7 before the land tribunal, bilagi in respect of the lands bearing sy. nos. 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 and 105 of kolur village in bilagi taluk, bagalkot district. the tribunal by its order dated 6-9-1975 allowed the application and granted occupancy rights in favour of somappa. necessary entries have been carried out in the revenue register in respect of the lands. as per conditions of grant of occupancy rights in respect of the lands, lands could not be sold to any one within a period of 15 years from the date of conferment of occupancy rights in favour of the tenant. it is stated that after the period of non-alienation i.e., after a lapse of 23 years from the date of grant, the lands have been sold in favour of three persons and they are in possession as on today. name of the petitioner's father was entered in respect of the said lands. the third respondent claims to be the son of govindappa hunasikatti who is the brother of the petitioner's father. in 1995 he applied to the village accountant seeking to modify the mutation entry and to enter his .....

Tag this Judgment!


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