Karnataka Court November 1973 Judgments
A.J. Aramha Vs. Mysore Road Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-1973
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ262Kant
Chandrashekhar, J.1. The following two questions have been referred by a Division Bench under Section 7 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961:(1) Whether the regulations framed by the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation regulating the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and servants of the Corporation other than the chief executive officer, or general manager and the chief accounts officer under Section 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, have statutory force? and(2) Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution to the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, to obey the regulations framed under Section 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950?2. This writ petition had come up in the first instance before Malimath, J., who referred it to a Division Bench under Section 9 of the Mysore High Court Act, as his Lordship noticed conflicting decisions of this Court on the afores...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director of Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Manage ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1973
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ396Kant
Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called ''the Act', by the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore, against the order of the Employees' State Insurance Court, Harihar at Bangalore dated 19-2-1973 made in ESIA-3 of 72, allowing the application of the Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. respondent (hereinafter called 'the company') and declaring that the incentive payments made by the company to its employees under the incentive scheme are not 'wages' as defined under the Act and that ESI contributions are not to be levied on such payments.2. ESI Scheme was applied to the different units of the company in different years. The company has been collecting the contributions from its employees on the wages payable under the terms of employment and crediting the same to the ESI Corporation together with the employer's contribution. Disputes arose between the Corporation and the company on the com...
Tag this Judgment!Agro Private Limited Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1973
Reported in: ILR1974KAR285; 1974(1)KarLJ283; [1974]34STC1(Kar)
ORDERE.S. Venkataramiah, J. 1. The petitioner herein is a company dealing in motor cycles, spare parts, tractors, etc. in the course of its business, the petitioner used to purchase motor cycles from the manufacturers, Escorts Limited. The factory in which the motor cycles are manufactured is situated in the State of Haryana. The petitioner has acquired the right exclusively to deal in the motor cycles manufactured by Escorts Limited within the State of Mysore (now State of Karnataka) under an agreement entered into with Escorts Limited. Under the terms of the said agreement, the petitioner would become the owner of the motor cycles before it sells the same to its customers within the State of Karnataka. The turnover in respect of motor cycles is liable to sales tax under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In its return in respect of the assessment year 1965-66 (1st January, 1965, to 31st December, 1965), the petitioner claimed deduction in respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Parashuram Rao Anantha Rao Pise Vs. Pratibha Parashuram Rao Pise
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Kant31; ILR1974KAR95; 1974(1)KarLJ265
1. This appeal is fifed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order passed in M. C. No. 8 of 1972 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bhar-war, directing the appellant to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 100 p. m. by way ofmaintenance pendente lite, and Rs. 100 towards expenses of the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife The respondent filed M. C. No, 8 of 1972 against the appellant for a decree for judicial separation. During the pendency of the said case she applied to the Court below for making an order in regard to the maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. She stated in the course of the said application that the income of the appellant was in the order of Rs. 300 p. m. and she was entitled to maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 200 per month and Rs. 150 towards the expenses of the proceedings. The respondent pleaded that his income was in t...
Tag this Judgment!B.J. Jeevendriah Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1973
Reported in: [1975]35STC104(Kar)
ORDERMalimath, J.1. As common questions of law arise for consideration in this batch of writ petitions, they were heard together. The petitioners in some of the writ petitions have challenged the assessment orders passed by the concerned Commercial Tax Officers assessing the petitioners to tax under Section 6 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners in the remaining writ petitions have challenged the proposition notices issued by the concerned Commercial Tax Officers requiring the petitioners to show cause why tax under Section 6 of the Act should not be levied. The petitioners have challenged the validity of Section 6 of the Act. In one writ petition, the validity of Section 6-A of the Act has also been challenged. It was, however, contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that if the provisions of Sections 6 and 6-A of the Act are properly and reasonably construed, it will not be necessary to examine their contention...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanthi Shedthi Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Kant31a; ILR1974KAR86; 1974(1)KarLJ222
Sadanandaswamy, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree dated 4-10-1969 made in O. P. 697/67 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore. The appellant is the first claimant, respondent-1 is the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Harbour Project, Mangalore, and Respondents 2 and 3 are Claimants 2 and 3. O. P. 697/67 arises out of a reference made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by the II Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer (Harbour) Mangalore, in regard to the apportionment of the compensation granted under his award No. 7/67 dated 2-3-1967. The property that was acquired comprised of three plots S. No. 34/1, Wet 3, 2 acres 8 cents; S. No. 34/2, Wet 2, 3 acres 3 cents; and S. No. 34/3, garden 0.35 cents. These lands were acquired for the purpose of the Mangalore Harbour Project. The preliminary notification under Section 4(1) was published in the Mysore Gazette (Extraordinary) on 20th November 1...
Tag this Judgment!Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC553(Kar)
G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mysore, dated 8th June, 1972, by which the exemption from tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), granted by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Dharwar, in respect of the turnover of Iron-ore sold by the assessee as per contract No. 43/63 to the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M. M. T. C.) was disallowed. 2. The period of assessment is the year ended 31st March, 1965, during which the assessee sold iron-ore to the M. M. T. C. pursuant to contracts Nos. 43/63 and 14/64. The entire turnover relating to sales of iron-ore under the said contracts was exempted from tax under the Act by the Commercial Tax Office?: following the decision of the Supreme Court In State of Mysore v. Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons [1965] 16 S.T.C. 231 (S.C.). After the Act was amended with ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›