Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: karnataka Year: 2005 Page 7 of about 95 results (0.009 seconds)

Aug 05 2005 (HC)

V. Narayana Swamy and anr. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, B ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-05-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR4020; 2005(5)KarLJ350

ashok b. hinchigeri, j.1. the land at sy.no. 94 of nayanappasettypalya, bangalore south taluk, measuring 2 acres 18 guntas were acquired for the benefit of the 2nd respondent-bangalore development authority ('bda' for short) vide preliminary notification dt. 30.11.1967 and final notification dt. 27.5.1970. these lands comprised of 1 acre 12 guntas of cultivable land and 1 acre 6 guntas of quarry land.2. the 1st respondent special land acquisition officer passed the award on 19.5.1975 fixing the market value at the rate of rs. 13,000/- per acre for 1 acre 12 guntas of cultivable land and rs. 1,000/- per acre for 1 acre 6 guntas of kharab land consisting of quarry. he awarded a sum of rs. 1,17,958/- for the loss of business quarry and other things at 30% out of the estimated value of rs. 3,93,194/- as proposed by the geo, mysore and as approved by the director of geology.3. not content with the aforesaid award, the appellants sought reference under section 18 of the land acquisition act, praying for the enhancement of the compensation amount aggregating to rs. 1,79,127-70. as many as 4 witnesses were examined and as many as 32 documents were marked as exhibits on behalf of the appellants. the respondents did not lead their rebuttal evidence.4. the reference court formulated the following points for its consideration:(i) whether the claimants are entitled for the compensation in respect of the phut kharab land measuring 1-06 acre pertaining to the quarries? if so, to what extent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 2005 (HC)

Jeelani Mosque Committee (R) Vs. the Shimoga Urban Development Authori ...

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 applicability of the karnataka urban development authorities act, 1987, for short kuda act, to the district of shimoga. the assets, liabilities, contracts etc., of the erstwhile citb as on 25.09.1988, stood transferred and vested in the 1st respondent, by the application of section 78(4)(c) of the kuda act. certain sites in the layout plan, annexure d were reserved for community hall, post office, bank, school, etc.,(iii) the 1st respondent issued a notification dated 07.09.1990, annexure c, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2005 (HC)

Pro Lab a Partnership Concern and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka Rept ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-19-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR475; [2006]144STC33(Kar)

r. gururajan, j.1. all these writ petitions are referred to the division bench, by a learned judge of this court in terms of an order dated 3.3.2004. all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. facts in w.p.nos. 8602 and 8603-24/2004:the petitioners are carrying on the business at different places within the state of karnataka. they are registered as dealers under the karnataka sales tax act (for short 'the act'). the petitioners operate photographic studios and are engaged in providing service to customers for processing and supplying photographs, photo prints and photo negatives. the petitioners submit that section 5-b of the act provides for levy of tax on the taxable turnover relating to transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of works contracts that are specified in the 6th schedule to the act. entry no. 25 of this schedule as it was enforced up to 6.9.1999 specified works contracts relating to 'processing and supplying photographs, photo prints, photo negatives' and during different years prescribed rate of tax at 8% and 10%. a division bench of this court in its judgment dated 6.9.1999 keshoram surindranath photo-mag (p) ltd., and ors. v. asst. commissioner of commercial taxes (lr), city division, bangalore and ors., (2001) 121 stc 175 declared entry 25 of the 6th schedule to the act which specified the works contract of 'processing and supplying photographs, photo prints and photo negatives' and also prescribed rate of basic tax .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2005 (HC)

Sarfaraj Nawaz C. Loni Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-19-2005

Reported in : 2005(6)KarLJ137

orderr. gururajan, j.1. all these petitions are taken up together for final disposal.petitioner-sarfaraj nawaz loni is before me seeking for a writ of declaration that rule 3(1)(d) of the karnataka selection of candidates for admission to professional institutions rules, 2005 as being arbitrary and ultra vires to articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of india. petitioner seeks permission to appear for counselling to be conducted by the second respondent in ii-b category. petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to refund or adjust the tuition fee paid by the petitioner for the academic year 2004-05.1.1 petitioner completed his pre-university examination with 69.33%. he appeared for the get held in may 2004. he was selected and he was suceessful. he selected a seat for i year mbbs course in jjm medical college, davanagere through counselling held by the second respondent on 13-9-2004 in iibg/k category with the ranking of 4872. petitioner joined the college. however, on 30-9-2004 he informed the college that since the fee had been fixed at rs. 1,72,000/- per year, it was financially not possible for him to meet the same in addition to other miscellaneous fee, therefore he surrendered the seat.1.2 petitioner once again appeared for the get held on 3-5-2005 and 4-5-2005 and has been allotted medical rank of 3311. petitioner submits that on account of the restraint placed on candidates who had obtained a seat in the previous year in any discipline not being eligible .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 2005 (HC)

C.R. Satyanarayanan Vs. Indian Overseas Bank

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!

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 01 2005 (HC)

Balaji Computers and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by It ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-01-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR38; [2006]147STC269(Kar)

p. vishwanatha shetty, j.1. the appellants in this appeal were the petitioners in writ petitions no. 5158-61 of 2005. the substantial grievance of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessees') in the writ petitions was that since the parts of computer and computer peripherals were exempted from levy of turnover tax/resale tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the tot/rst) under section 6b of the karnataka sales tax act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), by means of notification no. fd 48 csl 2000 (2) dated 18'' july 2000; no. fd 97 csl 2001 (7) no. 660 dated 31st march 2001 and no. fd 54 csl 2002 (4) dated 30'' march 2002, the copies of which have been produced as annexure-e, f and g respectively to this appeal, the proposition notices issued by the assessing authorities pursuant to the circular dated 31st december 2004 in no. clr cr. 157/04-05, a copy of which has been produced as annexure-d to the writ petitions, were without jurisdiction and were liable to be quashed. they have also sought for quashing of the aforesaid circular, annexure-d. the learned single judge, by means of his order dated 10th february 2005 dismissed the writ petitions on the short ground that since the appellants have alternative remedies provided under the act, it is not appropriate, in exercise of the power conferred on him under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, to grant reliefs sought for by the assessees in the writ petitions. aggrieved by the said order, .....

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 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!


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