Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: karnataka Year: 2005 Page 9 of about 95 results (0.008 seconds)

Oct 06 2005 (HC)

Binani Industries Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-06-2005

Reported in : [2006]145STC24(Kar)

h.l. dattu, j. 1. the appellants in these appeals are dealers registered under the provisions of the karnataka sales tax act, 1957 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the act, 1957'). apart from other business activities, they are also in the business of leasing machinery, equipment and motor vehicles. in the writ petitions filed, they had called in question the legality or otherwise of section 5-c of the act and the circular instructions issued by the commissioner of commercial taxes no. 5 of 1996-1997 dated april 12, 1996 and the subsequent circular no. 31 of 1999-2000, dated october 23, 1999, clarifying the effect of section 5-c of the act and the consequential orders of assessments, proposition notices/show cause notices issued by the assessing authorities and the revisional authorities. since common questions of law had been involved in all the writ petitions filed before the court, the learned single judge had raised three primary issues for determination. they were :i. whether section 5-c of the act is unconstitutional and void on account of failure to obtain previous sanction of the president under article 304(b) of the constitution ?ii. if section 5-c of the act is valid, what is the true effect and whether it is correctly interpreted in the circular dated april 12, 1996 or in the circular dated october 23, 1999 ?iii. what is the effect of commissioner's circular no. 5 of 1996-1997, dated april 12, 1996 and the subsequent circular no. 31 of 1999-2000 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 2005 (HC)

Sripad Ekanath Gaonkar Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Kumta Division

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-21-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR1895

orderk. ramanna, j.1. this writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.7.1996 passed by the respondent assistant commissioner in case lrm.ap.cr.95/95-96.2. the brief facts leading to this case are that the land bearing survey no. 98/a measuring 1 acre 17 guntas 8 annas of hanehalli village, kumta taluk was granted by land tribunal to one devu honnappa gowda and the occupancy rights was issued to him on 25.5.1981 as per annexure-a. the petitioner herein was looking after devu honnappa gowda therefore he made a registered will bequeathing some portion, i.e., 82 ft x 66 ft., of the said survey number in favour of the petitioner under a registered will dated 9.4.1985. thereafter, pursuant to the said will the petitioner's name was incorporated in the record of rights. but respondent asst. commissioner issued notice to the petitioner as well as devu honnappa gowda under section 61 of the karnataka land reforms act stating that the devu honnappa gowda has violated section 61 of the act by transferring a portion of the land in favour of the petitioner. to this the petitioner has given reply. thereafter by order dated 25.7.1996 the respondent herein has passed order for vesting of the land granted to devu honnappa gowda. therefore the petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition.3. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned high court govt. pleader for the respondent.4. it is contended by the learned counsel for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 2005 (HC)

Mehata Enterprises Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

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!

Oct 24 2005 (HC)

S. Shivanna Vs. the Special Tahsildar and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-24-2005

orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. non-interference is the rule insofar as the orders passed by the revenue authorities under the provisions of the karnataka land revenue act, 1964 (for short, 'the act'), for the purpose of mutating names of persons who have acquired rights by showing their names in the revenue records.2. it is for this reason this court dismisses a good number of such writ petitions, directing the parties to make good their claims, rights, title and interest etc., before the civil court and whereupon to seek the revenue authorities for changes in the revenue records also in terms of the determination by the civil court vis-a-vis warring parties. but interference, though an exception and on rare occasions, will be in a case where it is warranted.3. the writ jurisdiction of this court whether for issue of certiorari or writ of mandamus or even for issue of writ of prohibition, will be exercised when this court notices that the administrative authorities have exercised the power given to them under the statutory provisions in an arbitrary, whimsical and unreasonable manner which shocks the conscious of the court. i find the present writ petition brings to the notice of this court one such situation and therefore compels interfere in the matter.4. the brief facts leading to this petition are:that the petitioner is complaining of orders passed by the tahsildar in terms of his order dated 4-8-2001 purporting to act under the provisions of section 128 of the act and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 2005 (HC)

Smt. Radhamma and ors. Vs. H.N. Muddukrishna and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-07-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Kant68; 2006(1)KarLJ176

manjula chellur, j.1. heard the learned counsels on either side.2. the appellants in r.f.a. no. 347 of 1998 are none other than the plaintiffs and the appellants in r.f.a. no. 922 of 2001 are the defendants before the trial court in o.s. no. 9 of 1976. the plaintiffs sought for 1/10th share in all properties described in the schedule to the plaint as 'a' to 'h'. the learned trial judge, decreed the suit declaring that second plaintiff is entitled for l/10th share in the plaint 'a' to 'e' schedule property and she is entitled for partition and separate possession of that share in the said property. so far as property 'h schedule is concerned it was declared as the exclusive property of smt. k.c. saroja. 'f' and 'g' schedule properties are concerned, the trial judge held them also against the plaintiffs.3. the brief facts that led to the filing of the suit by the plaintiffs are is under:plaintiff 1-smt. hanumakka is the second wife of late patel hanume gowda and second plaintiff is the daughter of late patel hanume gowda. first defendant mr. narasimhaiah and defendants 2 and 3, smt. muddamma and lakshmamma are the daughters of late hanume gowda though his first wife. smt. k.c. saroja is the wife of muddukrishna s/o. mr. narasimhaiah. defendant 5(c) is the wife of narasimhaiah and other defendants 5(a), 5(b) and 5(g) are the children of late narasimhaiah.4. it is the case of the plaintiffs that late mr. patel hanume gowda was owning several moveable and immovable properties .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 2005 (HC)

M. Narayanappa Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-09-2005

orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. these two writ petitions, though are by two different persons, both of whom are claiming as legal heirs of persons in whose favour agricultural lands had been granted - an extent of 2 acres each - way back in the year 1947 and as persons belonging to depressed class [adi karnataka] and directed against different orders passed by the assistant commissioner and the deputy commissioner - statutory functionaries under the provisions of the karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978 (for short, 'the act'), first as original authority and second as the appellate authority - after having heard the matter at length, i am disposing of the petitions by this common order, as the legal issues that are canvassed on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents are common, though on facts, some more issues are sought to be raised insofar as the respondents 3 to 5 in w.p. no. 8141 of 2003 are concerned.2. both petitions owe their origin to the proceedings under the act and the assistant commissioner having initiated the proceedings suo motu in terms of section 5 of the act for invalidating the transfers that had been effected either by the grantee or their legal heirs, as also the subsequent series of transactions that had taken place, till the proceedings were initiated and by issue of notice to persons who were presently in occupation of the subject lands.3. insofar as w.p. no. 8141 of 2003 is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 14 2005 (HC)

Dr. Madhav Shankar Pandit and ors. Vs. Dr. Ganapati Narayan Sabhahit a ...

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!

Nov 15 2005 (HC)

Uppar Malleshappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-15-2005

orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. writ petition is by a purchaser of agricultural land measuring an extent of 0.54 acres of land in sy. no. 62/b and also an extent of 0.85 acres of land in sy. no. 63/b of chikkajayeganur village, hospet taluk, bellary district, in terms of a sale deed dated 3-11-1976 claiming to have been executed by one shiddalingappa.2. though the petitioner was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of this land the 4th respondent one smt. dasara lingamma, w/o. shivappa claiming to be a granddaughter of the original grantee had filed an application before the assistant commissioner in the year 2001 under the provisions of the karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978 (for short, the 'act') praying for invalidation of the present sale transaction and the earlier transactions on the premise that the original grant being one in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste community; that it had been imposed with a condition that the land should not be sold in favour of non-scheduled caste community persons for ever etc., and such a land having been sold by the legal heirs of the original grantee and presently the respondent in the application viz., the present writ petitioner being in possession and enjoyment of the land who had claimed such ownership and possession under the sale deed dated 3-11-1976 said to have been executed by the said shiddalingappa the transactions are required to be invalidated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 16 2005 (HC)

Roshanbi and ors. Vs. Usmansab Shaikaji Attar Since Deceased by His Lr ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-16-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR560; 2006(4)KarLJ336

huluvadi g. ramesh, j.1. this second appeal is by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the ii addl. civil judge, (sr. dvn.,) belgaum, in r.a. no. 75/1988 allowing the appeal filed by the defendant and dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.2. the plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 7/8th share in the suit property. the suit property is a residential house bearing cts. no. 883/a and 883/b situate at aralikatti deshpande galli, belgaum. the original propositus - shaikji had two wives namely halimabi and roshanbi. the defendant is the son of halima bi, the first wife of shaikji. the plaintiffs - 2 to 8 are the children of second wife who is plaintiff no. 1 - roshanbi. the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant is that the defendant is the step - son of plaintiff no. 1. plaintiffs - 2 to 8 are the step brothers. the suit property was said to be purchased by shaikji on 28.9.1926 and he died in the year 1969. it appears that the mother of the defendant halimabi died prior to shaikji and after that, shaikji married plaintiff no. 1. another brother of defendant namely, umarsab also died prior to shaikji. it is stated that there was a division effected, by way of family arrangement, in respect of suit property bearing cts no. 883/a and 883/b in the year 1979 and there is no partition in the suit house and since there was some misunderstanding between the parties, they started living separately from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 2005 (HC)

The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and anr. Vs. State o ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-25-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR318; 2006(1)KarLJ1

n. kumar, j.1. the appellants-bangalore development authority (for short, 'the bda'), the state of karnataka, the former chief minister sri s.'m. krishna and two others have challenged in this batch of eight writ appeals the order of the learned single judge quashing the acquisition proceedings pertaining to 'arkavathi layout' as well as the declaration made to the effect that the bda has no jurisdiction to frame developmental schemes in bangalore metropolitan area and against other reliefs granted in the writ petitions. some writ petitions have also been filed challenging the acquisition of land for the formation of the 'arkavathi layout' on the grounds, which have been upheld by the learned single judge, in the impugned judgment under appeal. since identical questions of law and fact arise for consideration in the writ appeals and the writ petitions they are taken up for consideration together and are being disposed of by this common order. the facts leading to the present proceedings are briefly stated hereunder:2. the bda for the purpose of formation of arkavathi layout formulated a developmental scheme and issued a notification dated 3-2-2003 under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 17 of the bangalore development authority act, 1976 (for short, 'the bda act'), which was duly published in the karnataka gazette on the very same day. in accordance with section 36 of the bda act, the additional land acquisition officer, bda, bangalore, its staff and workmen were authorized .....

Tag this Judgment!


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