Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-14-2005
Reported in : ILR2006KAR657
v. gopalagowda, j.1. this review petition is filed by respondents 5 to 7 in m.f.a. no. 5472/2001 requesting this court to review the judgment dt. 8/8/2005 passed by this court in m.f.a. no. 5472/2001 and further requested to set aside the same and dismiss the appeal with costs urging various legal contentions.2. in this judgment, for the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to, as has been assigned in the misc. first appeal.3. the first ground urged in this petition is that no appeal lies under section 72(4) of the bombay public trust act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the bpt act) against the order dt. 24/9/2001 passed in misc. no. 26/1998 on the file of the district judge, uttar kannada district, karwar, rejecting the claim of second appellant to appoint him as the trustee of the trust of sree vinayaka devaru temple, idagunji. therefore the order passed by this court allowing the appeal is without jurisdiction, hence the judgment sought to be reviewed suffers from error apparent on the face of the record is the ground on which this petition is filed to review the order passed in the appeal.4. sri kamath, learned counsel placed strong reliance upon section 72(1) of the bpt act which is extracted hereunder:72(1). any person aggrieved by the decision of the charity commissioner under section 40, 41, 70 or 70a or on the questions whether a trust exists and whether such a trust is a public trust or whether any property is the property of such trust may, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-13-2005
Reported in : AIR2005Kant203; 2005(2)KarLJ325
orderr. gururajan, j.1. petitioners are minority institutions established by the respective trusts/societies for the purpose of imparting education to the students in mysore town without grant-in-aid code. petitioners have established schools for different categories of students, more particularly the minority students of mysore town. having established the necessary infrastructure in the form of building and other facilities for imparting education for the students in petitioners' institutions, they have been granted aid by the state government. they are spending considerable amount of money for education purposes. they have the protection under articles 29 and 30 of the constitution of india. petitioners state that the state government took a decision to extend akshara dasoha scheme i.e., to provide midday meal to children studying in government schools. petitioners state that the respondents are under legal duty to provide necessary infrastructure to the management. they are spending considerable amount of money in the matter of education, providing midday meal would mean higher expenditure. they say that they cannot afford such expenditure.2. according to petition averments, 2nd respondent issued a circular and it made available rs. 1,31 ps. for each of the children for providing midday meal. it also provides 90 gms. of rice, 20 gms. of toor dal, 5 gms. of salt, 3 gms. of oil and 25 gms. of vegetables. rs. 1.31 ps. is totally insufficient. a minimum of rs. 7 to 8/- is .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-14-2005
Reported in : [2005(107)FLR1120]; ILR2005KAR2033; 2005(4)KarLJ432; (2005)IIILLJ625Kant
orderk. sreedhar rao, j.the petitioner retired from the services of the respondent as assistant manager with effect from 31-5-01. in respect of disbursement of some of the loans made by the petitioner during his services is the subject matter of a criminal proceedings in special case no. 74/01 and special case no. 75/01 pending on the file of special court for cbi cases, bangalore. the petitioner seeks the payment of gratuity and commutation of pension and other pensionary benefits payable with interest at 12% from the date of retirement till the payment.2. per contra the respondent rely on the regulation 46 of the state bank of mysore employees' (pension) regulations, 1995 which reads thus:'46. provisional pension-(1) an employee who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceeding are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued, a provisional pension, equal to the maximum pension which would have been admissible to him, would be allowed subject to adjustment against final retirement benefits sanctioned to him, upon conclusion of the proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld etc., either permanently or for a specified period.(2) in such cases the gratuity shall not be paid to such an employee until the conclusion of the proceedings against him. the gratuity shall be paid to him .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-23-2005
Reported in : (2007)7VST246(Karn)
orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. writ petition is by a dealer under the provisions of the karnataka sales tax act, 1957 (for short, 'the act') whose second appeal is pending before the karnataka appellate tribunal.2. it appears that the tribunal, during the pendency of the appeal, had granted certain interim orders which enured to the benefit of the petitioner. but, unfortunately for the petitioner, such interim orders having ceased in terms of the operation of provisions of second proviso to sub-section (5) of section 22 of the act which read as under:provided further that the appellate tribunal shall dispose of such appeal within a period of one hundred eighty days from the date of the order staying proceedings of recovery of one half of tax or other amount and, if such appeal is not so disposed of within the period specified, the order of stay shall stand vacated after the said period and the appellate tribunal shall not make any further order staying proceedings of recovery of the said tax or other amount.3. the present writ petition was filed by the dealer apprehending that in view of such developments, the respondents may resort to recovery proceedings.4. submission of sri vasudev, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner has already deposited 75 per cent of the disputed amount ; that even in respect of the balance 25 per cent, the petitioner has furnished security to the satisfaction of the respondents ; that in such a situation, even during the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-22-2005
Reported in : (2007)7VST252(Karn)
orderd.v. shylendra kumar j.1. all these petitions are by dealers under the karnataka sales tax act, 1957 (for short, 'the act'), who are aggrieved by the orders passed by the commercial tax officers at check-posts and the commercial tax officer, mobile squad, who had occasion to intercept the goods vehicles carrying the goods taxable under the act. in all these instances, the respondent-officers having passed orders in exercise of the power under section 28-aaa of the act for effecting compulsory purchase of the goods in question at the price as declared in the supporting documents and the petitioners having been deprived of such goods and in the light of the orders being entitled to receive only the price as had been indicated therein, are before this court challenging the legality of these orders, while also questioning the constitutional validity of the very provision, namely, section 28-aaa of the act, which reads as under:28-aaa. power to purchase in case of under valuation of goods to evade tax.-(1) where in respect of goods liable to tax under this act, carried in a goods vehicle or boat or held in stock by any dealer or on his behalf by any other person or held in custody of any transporter, the assessing authority or any officer empowered under section 28 or 28-a, has reason to believe that the value shown in the document accompanying the goods in transit or the purchase invoice, is lower than the prevailing market price or fair market value or mrp by a difference .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-01-2005
Reported in : 2005(5)KarLJ524
n.k. patil, j.1. the claimant-appellant, being aggrieved by the enhancement of market value and awarding of interest in judgment and award dated 25th august, 2003 in lac no. 891 of 1983 on the file of the civil judge (senior division), chikodi in respect of the lands in question, has presented the instant appeal.2. land bearing survey no. 333 measuring 8 acres 34 guntas situate at kabbur village, chikodi taluk has been notified and acquired by government vide its preliminary notification issued under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act, 1894 on 5th march, 1981 for the purpose of 'construction of the canal of hidkal dam project'. the land acquisition officer, after taking all relevant factors into consideration and other materials available on file, has fixed the market value of the land in question at the rate of rs. 30,277.17 ps. per acre. not being satisfied with the award passed by the land acquisition officer, the claimant-appellant herein filed the application for reference under section 18(1) of the land acquisition act, 1894 and requested the land acquisition officer to refer the same to the jurisdictional civil court for enhancement of compensation. the reference court, in turn, after thorough evaluation of oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has enhanced the compensation redetermining the market value of the land in question at the rate of rs. 38,500/ per acre. being aggrieved by the said enhancement made by the reference court, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-24-2005
Reported in : 2005(5)KarLJ540; (2005)IIILLJ772Kant
orderb.s. patil, j.1. in this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 13-1-1998 passed by the disciplinary authority removing the petitioner from service and the order of the appellate authority dated 12-5-1998 rejecting the appeal and confirming the penalty imposed.2. petitioner is an officer of the respondent-bank who has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-10-1995. on certain allegations of misconduct, just prior to the date of retirement, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 7-10-1995. a charge-sheet dated 30-10-1995 alleging that the petitioner has committed certain acts of misconduct was served on him on 31-10-1995. the charges pertained to several acts of omission and commission on the part of the petitioner while working as chief manager of the jayanagar 5th block branch, bangalore. an additional charge-sheet dated 31-10-1995 came to be issued which was served on the petitioner on 3-11-1995. the additional charge-sheet also dealt with similar allegations pertaining to the act of omission and commission on the part of the petitioner while working in the jayanagar 5th block branch as chief manager. the respondent-bank passed an order dated 4-11-1995 ordering that the petitioner will cease to be in the services of the respondent-bank after his superannuation on 31-10-1995 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him in respect of the charge-sheet dated 30-10-1995. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-21-2005
Reported in : (2007)7VST191(Karn)
orderd.v. shylendra kumar j.1. petitioners are registered dealers both under the provisions of the karnataka sales tax act, 1957 (for short, 'the kst act') and central sales tax act, 1956 (for short, 'the cst act'). petitioners have questioned the legality of the government notification dated march 31, 1997 (annexure c to the writ petition) issued under section 8-a of the kst act granting exemption in respect of notified items under this notification for a period of one year starting from april 1, 1998 from the tax that was payable under section 5 of the kst act.2. a notification of this nature though not one creating any liability and on the other hand being beneficial to the assessees, is nevertheless characterised as an arbitrary one, as one bringing about an invidious classification, discriminating between the business of intra-state and inter-state, in the sense that the petitioners are entitled to exemption of tax under kst act while it is not so, provided under the cst act, and therefore the notification is bad.3. to make good the argument, submission of sri s.s. angadi, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the liability under the provisions of the cst act in terms of section 8(2-a), the charging section therein, is a tax that is linked to the rate of tax under the kst act in the respective state act and in view of the exemption notification, issued under the kst act, the rate of tax under kst act becoming zero, it automatically becomes zero even under the cst .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-13-2005
Reported in : 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 divided into 10 lakh equity shares of rs. 10/- each.4. the balance sheet made up to 31-03-2004 exhibit-' a' of the transferor company duly audited by its auditors discloses its assets and liabilities.5. the board of directors of the transferor company in its meeting approved and adopted the scheme of amalgamation exhibit-'e' whereunder the transferor company is proposed to be merged with m/s vijaya bank, for short the transferee company', a company constituted under the banking companies ( .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-17-2005
Reported in : 2005(2)KarLJ69
orderk. sreedhar rao, j.1. the petitioner working as a professor and dean of faculty of arts in bangalore university. the vice-chancellor by order at annexure-b, dated 28-6-2004 nominated the petitioner to syndicate. the terms of nomination makes it explicit that the term is for one year w.e.f. 1-7-2004 or till the reconsideration of syndicate as envisaged under section 38(1), whichever is earlier.2. the term of syndicate to which the petitioner is nominated expired and reconstituted w.e.f. 6-11-2004. it is the contention of the petitioner that even in the reconstituted syndicate, he is entitled to hold the office as a nominated member until the expiry of one year as per annexure-b. the relevant provisions of sections 28, 38 and 39 are extracted hereunder for convenient reference.-'28. syndicate.-(1) the syndicate shall consist of the following members, namely.-xxx xxx xxx.(d) one dean nominated by the vice-chancellor for a period of one year by rotation according to seniority.38. the term of office of the members of the academic council and syndicate.-(1) save as otherwise provided, the term of the office of the members other than the ex officio members of the academic council and the syndicate shall be three years, or till reconstitution, whichever is earlier.(2) notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the academic council and the syndicate shall be reconstituted once in three years simultaneously.39. restriction of holding the membership of the authorities:-(1) any .....Tag this Judgment!