Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: karnataka Year: 2005 Page 2 of about 95 results (0.037 seconds)

Jun 22 2005 (HC)

Abdul Gafoor Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

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!

Jun 27 2005 (HC)

The Managment of S.K.F. Bearings India Ltd. Vs. Mr. S.M. Ravi Kumar an ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-27-2005

Reported in : [2006(109)FLR580]; ILR2006KAR445

..... officers - (1) the appropriate government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint such number of persons as it thinks fit, to be conciliation officers, charged with the duty of mediating in and promoting the settlement of industrial disputes.(2) a conciliation officer may be appointed for a specified area or for specified industries in a specified area or for one ..... and keeping in mind the object of the power conferred on him. from the scheme of the act, it is clear that conciliation officers are appointed with a view to mediate and bring about settlement and create a congenial atmosphere for the purpose of industries peace. therefore, once the conciliation officer is satisfied that there is an existing industrial dispute or ..... as convening of a meeting between the management and the workmen. from the scheme of the act it is clear that the conciliation officers are appointed with a view to mediate and bring about settlement and create a congenial atmosphere for the purpose of industrial peace. therefore, it would not be permissible for him not to initiate conciliation proceedings, if in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 13 2005 (HC)

Vibank Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Nil

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 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!

Jul 26 2005 (HC)

V. Bhujanga Shetty Vs. the State of Karnataka, Rep. by Revenue Secreta ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-26-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR6059; 2006(5)KarLJ443

orderk. ramanna, j.1. this writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.8.1980 passed by the land tribunal, kundapura, in lrt- 11-160-tri-10929/80-81 granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent no. 3-shesha shetty.2. the brief facts leading to this case are that the petitioner herein said to be purchaser of the various items of lands bearing sy. no. 95 and 96/3 from the original owners manjamma, chikkamma and paddamma, who are the daughters of smt. y. nagamma shedthi in the year 1972. because of prohibition for registration of immovable properties, the said three persons registered three separate sale deeds on 06.9.1974. it is the further case of the petitioner that respondent no. 3-shesha shetty who is none other than the father-in-law of the petitioner filed form no. 7 on 21.12.1975 claiming occupancy rights of various items of the landed properties belonging to the petitioner and the petitioner's name has been shown in column no. 1 of form no. 7 at item no. 10 as bhujanga shetty. though respondent no. 3 filed form no. 7 including the name of the petitioner, the tribunal has not issued any notice as contemplated under rules 17 and 19 of the karnataka land reforms rules and without issuing notice either to the petitioner or to the general public passed the impugned order in favour of respondent no. 3, even though he was not at all cultivating the said land. the impugned order under challenge is not a speaking order, so also the finding recorded .....

Tag this Judgment!

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!

Aug 26 2005 (HC)

Murigayya Gurubasayya Muttinamath (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. the Land Trib ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-26-2005

Reported in : 2006(5)KarLJ475

ordern.k. patil, j.1. the instant land reforms revision petition is directed against the order dated 17th march, 1989 passed by the additional land reforms appellate authority, bagalkot in l.r.a. (tr)no. 53 of 1987, setting-aside the order passed by the land tribunal, badami, dated 3rd december, 1981 in no. klr.t.s.r. 2488.2. the third respondent herein-sri yellappa neelappa bharamagoudra, claiming to be a tenant in respect of land in sy. no. 60/1+2, measuring 16 acres 39 guntas situate at gangana budihal village, badami taluk, bijapur district is alleged to have filed form 7 for grant of occupancy rights before the first respondent-land tribunal, badami on 15th march, 1989. the said application filed by third respondent-applicant had come up for consideration before first respondent-land tribunal, badami on 3rd december, 1981 in klr.t.sr.2488. the land tribunal, after evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, and on the basis of the admission stated to have been made by third respondent himself, to the effect that, he is not cultivating the said land as tenant, has passed the order, rejecting the application filed by third respondent-applicant in form 7. being aggrieved by the said order passed by the first respondent-land tribunal, badami on 3rd december, 1981, the third respondent herein had filed writ petition no. 13050 of 1982 before this court. when the said writ petition was pending adjudication before this court, the writ petition stood transferred to the land .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2005 (HC)

Moulasab Bandgisab Goundi Vs. Yamanappa Ameenappa Hikodi

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-02-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Kant412; ILR2005KAR5230; 2006(5)KarLJ295

huluvadi g. ramesh, j.1. this second appeal is by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the ii addi. district judge, bijapur in r.a. no. 7/88 wherein the learned district judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the addl. civil judge, bijapur in o.s. no. 169/83.2. the plaintiff had filed a suit to declare that the defendant no. 5 has not acquired any right, title or interest in the alleged sale deed dated 10-5-1982 executed by defendants 1 to 4 and also to issue permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 5 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land by the plaintiff and to order for delivery of possession if the court finds that the plaintiff is not in possession or lost the possession of the suit land. the plaintiff said to have purchased the suit schedule property from defendants 1 to 4 for a valuable consideration of rs. 10,000/- under a sale deed dated 30-7-1979 which is to the extent of 3 acres 10 guntas situated at tadalagi village, basavana bagewadi taluk. it is stated that immediately after the sale deed the title of the suit property passed to the plaintiff and the possession was also given and he started cultivating the property, and that subsequently, defendants 1 to 4 without the knowledge of the plaintiff have executed the sale deed dated 10-5-1982 in favour of defendant no. 5 in respect of the same property for a sale consideration .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2005 (HC)

Rama Nagappa Mahar @ Kamble Vs. Nagappa Mallappa Mahar @ Kamble and or ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-02-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Kant31; ILR2005KAR5386

v.g. sabhahit, j.1. this appeal by the first defendant is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned ii additional district judge, belgaum, in r.a. no. 21/99 dated 17.6.2003, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned i additional civil judge (sr. dn), belgaum, in o.s. no. 76/1987 dated 6.4.1999, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in part for partition and separate possession of their half share in the schedule i-a and schedule-11 properties.2. the essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial court are as follows :the plaintiffs filed a suit o.s. no. 76/87 seeking for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. schedule i consists of two portions, schedule i-a comprises of 4 items of agricultural lands and schedule 1-b comprises of tenanted lands and schedule ii consists of three household properties and two open sites as described in the schedule. it is the case of the plaintiffs that one nagappa, the propositor of the family had three sons viz., kallappa, rama (defendant no. 1) and mallappa. plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons and plaintiff 4 is the wife of mallappa. it is averred that nagappa died about 50 to 60 years next before filing of the suit. kallappa was given in adoption to one nagawwa, w/o. omya mahar in the year 1923. mallappa died on 8.12.1960 leaving behind the plaintiffs i.e., his sons and wife as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2005 (HC)

Tippanna Vs. Jalal Sab and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-15-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Kant1; ILR2005KAR6011; 2005(6)KarLJ100

v.g. sabhahit, j.1. this appeal by the second plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree; passed by the court of civil judge (senior division), yadgir, in r.a. no. 69 of 1997, dated 7-3-2003 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the court of civil judge (junior division), shahapur in o.s. no. 1.26 of 1989, dated 30-8-1997 and dismissing the suit of the second plaintiff2. the essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial court are as follows.--plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed the suit o.s. no. 26 of 1988 later numbered as o.s. no 126 of 1989 on the file of the civil judge (junior division), yadgir seeking for a judgment and decree declaring that plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule land and for possession of the suit schedule property by dispossessing the defendants and for mesne profits and costs.3. it is averred in the plaint that plaintiff 1 is the absolute owner in possession of the land shown in the schedule which she inherited after the death of her father. the property is inherited from maternal side by plaintiff 1. plaintiff 1 is aged and blind and taking the support of her husband's brother thippanna-plaintiff 2 in managing the properties of the plaintiffs plaintiff 1 has also bequeathed the suit land in favour of plaintiff 2 by executing a will dated 23-10-1973. plaintiff 2 is the member of the family of plaintiff 1. defendants 1 and 2 are the sahukars of the village. plaintiff 1 has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2005 (HC)

B.N. Kamalanabha Reddy Vs. Munivenkatappa and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-15-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR222

order 6 rule 17 - amendment of pleadings - whether proposed amendment is permissible after the amendment to the code - held - a reading of section 16(2)(b) would make it abundantly clear that some of the provisions are omitted under order 6 and some of the provisions are inserted or substituted by amended code and shall not apply in respect of any pleadings filed before the commencement of the amended provision. therefore the proviso cannot be an impediment or bar in allowing the amendment application if it is otherwise on merits deserves to be allowed.petition rejected.

Tag this Judgment!


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