Karnataka Court November 1979 Judgments
Desahally Service Co-operative Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant122
Chandrashekhar, C.J.1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been referred to a Division Bench.2. This is the second round of litigation challenging amalgamation of cooperative societies. In. these petitions, originally the validity of Karnataka Ordinance No. 2 of 1978 had been impugned. Since that Ordinance has been replaced by the Karnataka Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act No. 14 of 1978) (hereinafter, referred to as the Amendment Act), the prayer in most of these petitions, has been amended so as to impugn the validity of the. Amendment Act. In some of these petitions, the constitutionality of Section 14-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has also been impugned.3. Before dealing with the rival contentions of learned counsel, it is necessary to set out the historical background of the impugned Amendment Act,4. After the formation of New State of Mysore (Karnataka) on re-organization...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator, Karnataka High Court Vs. R.C. MaraThe and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1979
Reported in: [1982]52CompCas125(Kar)
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This application is filed by the official liquidator of this court under s. 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), alleging against five of the former directors of M/s. Coaram Chemicals Private Ltd. (in liquidation) for acts of misfeasance. One of the five directors, who is the 1st respondent in the application, was the managing director up to February 8, 1969. The 4th respondent was the administrative director with effect from February 8, 1969, on which date, the 1st respondent-managing director was designated as technical director. The other respondents, who were ordinary directors, did not have direct concern in the matter of day-to-day administration of the company in liquidation. 2. The official liquidator has alleged that the company in liquidation was originally incorporated on 5th May, 1966, with an authorised capital of Rs. 2,00,000 divided into 200 equity shares, each valued at Rs. 1,000. The said capital was at all...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Varghese Vs. Reserve Bank and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1979
Reported in: 1980(1)KarLJ300; (1980)IILLJ57Kant
ORDER1. In this writ petition presented under Art. 226 of the Constitution, by an employee of the Reserve Bank of India, the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether the employees of the Reserve Bank of India hold civil posts under the Union and consequently governed by the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India ?' 2. The petitioner is a Staff Officer on the establishment of Reserve Bank of India. A departmental enquiry has been instituted against him by the Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore. The petitioner has questioned the validity of Regulation 47(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Staff Regulation which confers power on the Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore, to institute disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, on the ground that it is violative of clause (1) of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. The case sought to be made out by the petitioner is on the basis that the petitioner was appointed by the Governor of the Reserv...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Mathew and Etc. Vs. Prafulchand Amritlal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant57; 1980(1)KarLJ234
ORDER1. A frivolous, unjust and a desparate attempt made by the petitioners, who are the judgment-debtors, to delay and defeat decrees for eviction made against them, as early as on 28-11-1973, by the trial Court in Proceedings instituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act of 1961 (Karnataka Act No. 22 of 1961), (hereinafter referred to as the Act) relentlessly, fought and lost before the District Court, this Court and ultimately before the Supreme Court of India on the basis of a contention urged-in these cases, which is also concluded against them by the consistent and the rulings of this Court,even be rejected by just noticing their contention and the rulings of this Court on the point. But, I do not propose to do so out of deference to Shri S. K. Kulkarni learned counsel for the petitioner, who addressed elaborate and serious argument on their behalf. In order to appreciate the contentions urged before me in these cases, it is necessary to notice the facts that ...
Tag this Judgment!B.V.S. Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-ii and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1979
Reported in: [1981]127ITR130(KAR); [1981]127ITR130(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. The petitioner was a commissioned officer of the Indian Army and pursuant to a sanction of the President to his permanent absorption in the Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., was to be absorbed with effect from July 24, 1974. As a consequence his services with the Indian Army ceased and he was retired from that service. He was entitled to retirement benefits in accordance with communication bearing No. 23(7)/70/BEM/D(BEL) of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, dated September 12, 1974. The letter is addressed to the chairman-cum-managing director, Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., Bangalore, and is to the following effect : 'I am directed to refer to your letter No. CAO/054/BVSR/73 dated March 19, 1974, on the above subject and to convey sanction of the President to the permanent absorption of Lt., Col. B. V. S. Rao (IC-6364) Engineers in the Bharath Earth Movers Limited, Bangalore, in public interest, with effect from the date mentioned below on the following terms ...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishna Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Karnataka-ii and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR722(KAR); [1980]121ITR722(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J. 1. In these petitions, the petitioner is challenging the order made by the CWT, Karnataka-II, Bangalore, or September 6, 1974, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under s. 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (to be hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), for waiver of penalty imposable under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act, in relation to the assessment years 1966-67 to 1971-72. 2. The return for the assessment year 1966-67 was filed on April 6, 1972, and the assessment order was made on April 12, 1972. The returns for the other assessment years had been filed on or about March 22, 1972, and the assessments were completed on March 28, 1972. The returns were due to be filed by 30th of June of 1966 and of the subsequent years, and obviously the returns had been filed belated. The WTO, (Assessment-7), Circle-1, Bangalore, had issued notices to show cause why penalty should not be imposed under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act. The assessee had sent a reply thereto. He also fil...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Ohrie Vs. Accountant-general and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1979
Reported in: [1981]127ITR122(KAR); [1981]127ITR122(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J. 1. The petitioner had joined the Industrial Management Pool (Central Services Class I) of the Government of India in December, 1960, and was an officer of the Civil Services of the Union Government. He was working under the administrative control of the Bureau of Public Enterprises of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. From there, he was deputed to the Hindusthan Aeronautics Ltd., at Bangalore, a public sector undertaking, in May, 1973, as Controller of Services and continued in that capacity. It transpires that the Government of India decided to abolish the Industrial Management Pool and in that connection gave certain option to the officers borne on the pool. The petitioner was also given such an option and an intimation of termination of his employment under the Govt. of India. In terms of the communication therein, the petitioner exercised the option on February 12, 1977, and the retirement from the Govt. of India's services became effective. It als...
Tag this Judgment!India Sugars and Refineries Ltd., Hospet Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1979
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT209(Kar)
ORDER1. In this writ petition the demand made by the Excise authorities to refund a sum of Rs. 3,84,537.23 by a communication dated 14-11-75 (Exhibit 'D') on the ground that there was an excess allowance of rebate in regard to excise duty and further proceedings to enforce the same are challenged. 2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of sugar. By a notification dated 12-10-74, a copy of which has been filed as Exhibit 'A', the Government of India, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, granted certain exemption in regard to sugar. The notification is as follows : NOTIFICATION CENTRAL EXCISE G.S.R. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts sugar, described in column (2) of the Table below and falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 (1 of 1944), from so much of the duty of exci...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Vakil and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant44; ILR1980KAR638
Bopanna, J.1. These writ petitions have been referred to a Division Bench by Malimath, J., since they raise a common and important question of law touching on the constitutional validity of Sec21A of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (in short, 'the principal Act').2. Shri K. S. Savanur, learned counsel for the petitioner in W. P. 6914 of 1977 addressed leading arguments which were adopted by learned counsel, for the petitioners in other petitions.3. The principal Act came on the statute book on 31-12-1961 after receiving the assent of the president on 31-10-1961. It was amended from time to time and we are concerned in these petitions with the Karnataka Rent Control (Second Amendment) Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act No. 66 of 1976), in, short ('the Amendment Act') which replaced Karnataka Ordinances Nos. 20 and 29 of 1976. This Act received the assent of the Governor on 27-11-1976. Section 6 of the Amendment Act incorporated Section 21A into the principal Act with effect from 13-10-1976. ...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Santhalingam Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle-ii, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-1979
Reported in: (1980)15CTR(Kar)1; [1980]121ITR868(KAR); [1980]121ITR868(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J. 1. The petitioner is challenging the notice styled as 'Notice of demand of defaulter' under r. 2 of the Second Schedule to the I.T. Act, 1961, dated August 8, 1975, issued by the TRO, Bangalore, as being without jurisdiction. The notice is addressed to the petitioner who is a resident of Tirupur and states that a certificate No. FN. 3890 dated July 31, 1975, has been forwarded to him by the ITO, Central Circle-II, Bangalore, for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 96,710, being arrears of income-tax due by M/s. Rajalakshmi Textiles. The notice further stated that in default of payment steps would be taken in accordance with the Second Schedule to the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The facts are not in dispute. M/s. Rajalakshmi Textiles was a registered firm and had been assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1962-63 and 1963-64 in the status of a registered firm. Against the order of assessment, an appeal had been filed to the AAC of Income-tax and during the pendency of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »