Karnataka Court February 1979 Judgments
K.S. Raguramaiah Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1979
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ143Kant
1. In this writ petition the petitioner, who was a conductor in the service of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' has prayed for quashing the order made by the deputy general manager, K.S.R.T.C., Sirsi, North Kanara, discharging the petitioner from the service. 2. In the writ petition the petitioner has alleged that though the impugned order is innocuously worded and it is made to appear that it is discharge simpliciter, in fact, and in truth it is a penalty of removal from service, imposed against him for the misconduct alleged against him. In support of his submission, the petitioner has also produced an offence memo dated 7th July, 1977, which was served on him (Ext. A) and has stated that he was found guilty on the charges without holding an enquiry and was removed from service by the impugned order. 3. It is well-settled that though an order of discharge simpliciter is passed against a probationer, it does not preclude the ...
Tag this Judgment!Govindanaik G. Kalaghatigi Vs. West Patent Press Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant92; ILR1979KAR1401
Chandrashekhar, C.J.1. A Full Bench of three Judges of this Court has referred to a larger Bench of five Judges the following question:'When there is conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court, is it the later of the two decisions or the decision of the larger of the Benches which rendered those decisions that should be followed by High Courts and other Courts in the Country?2. A Full Bench of three Judges of this Court (which consisted one of us) opined in J. Aramha v. Mysore Road Transport Corporation (1974) 1 Kant LJ 344 that where there is a conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court, it is the later of those two decisions which must be followed by High Courts and other courts. The correctness of this view is doubted by a Division Bench of this Court in Rudrayya v. Gangawwa (1976) 1 Kant LJ 409 in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court on this point in Mattulal v. Radhelal : [1975]1SCR127 . The Full Bench of three Judges which has made this reference, felt...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karna ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1979
Reported in: ILR1979KAR1547; [1979]117ITR682(KAR); [1979]117ITR682(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. The question of law referred in I.T.R. C. No. 116 of 1974 under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), reads as follows: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of a sum of Rs. 5,95,000 represented capital expenditure and, therefore, not deductible in arriving at the income of the assessee ?'2. In I.T.R.C. No. 117 of 1974, the question of law referred is the same but the expenditure in respect of which the relief claimed is Rs. 5,96,000 instead of Rs. 5,96,000. 3. The assessee in these two cases is the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd..., Bangalore, which is a Government company. I.T.R. C. No. 116 of 1974 arises out of the assessment proceedings under the Act in respect of the assessment year 1966-67 and I.T. R.C. No. 117 of 1974 arises out of the assessment proceedings in...
Tag this Judgment!B.V. Patil Vs. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore-9
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-1979
Reported in: ILR1979KAR1015; [1979]43STC419(Kar)
Venkataramiah, J.1. These appeals are filed under section 24(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner), under section 22A of the Act revising the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Dharwar. The assessee, the appellant in these two cases, is a dealer carrying on business in chillies, groundnut, cotton, etc. The assessment years are 1969-70 and 1970-71. By his assessment orders the Commercial Tax Officer, Ranebennur, concluded the assessments under the Act levying purchase tax under section 6 of the Act on the purchase turnover of chillies. He also passed an order under section 12A of the Act levying purchase tax on the purchase turnover of chillies which had escaped assessment earlier. In the appeals filed by the assessee, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Dhar...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Syndicate Bank (Formerly Syndicat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1979
Reported in: [1986]159ITR474(KAR); [1986]159ITR474(Karn)
Venkataramiah, J.1. These two references are at the instance of the assessee. The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in I.T.R.C. No. 162 of 1975 reads : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amortised interest of Rs. 20,39,036 of the Zamindari Abolition Bonds was not income liable for income-tax for the assessment year 1967-68 ?'The question referred by the Tribunal in I.T.R.C. No. 163 of 1975 reads : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amortised interest of Rs. 16,24,030 of the Zamindari Abolition Bonds was not income liable for income-tax for the assessment year 1968-69 ?'Both the above questions relate to the same assessee but for two different assessment years, namely, 1967-68 and 1968-69. 2. The facts of these two cases, as set out in the appellate order of...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Cements Limited Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1979
Reported in: [1985]59STC197(Kar)
Andrashekhar, C.J.1. This revision petition is by an assessee. Shri K. R. Prasad, learned counsel for the assessee, contended that since no annual return had been filed by the assessee, the assessment for the year 1966-67 could be made only under section 12-A of the Karnataka Sales Act. 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that the time-limit of 5 years for initiating such proceedings had expired when the Commercial Tax Officer issued a notice to the assessee in November or December, 1974. 2. Shri Prasad did not dispute that the assessee had filed quarterly returns showing both his total and taxable turnovers. But, Shri Prasad contended that such returns had been filed only for the purpose of payment of advance tax under section 12-B of the Act and that such returns could not be regarded as returns for the purpose of regular assessment. He maintained that unless the assessee elected under rule 21(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 as it stood in the relevant assessmen...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka Vs. Corporation Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1979
Reported in: [1979]117ITR271(KAR); [1979]117ITR271(Karn)
D.M. Chandrashekhar, C.J.1. At the instance of the revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred under s. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question of law: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in a sum of Rs. 20, 278 does not constitute expenditure in the nature of entertainment expenditure within the meaning of section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. In para 2 of the statement of the case the material facts have been set out. They are: The assessee is a banking company having more than one hundred branches. Its important customers who come to its head office and branches for transacting business were served with coffee or tea. During the year in question the total expenditure incurred on serving coffee and tea was only Rs. 20, 278. This works ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-ii Vs. Indian Plastics and Chemi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1979
Reported in: [1981]130ITR745(KAR); [1981]130ITR745(Karn)
Chandrashekhar, C.J.1. These petitions under s. 256(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), are by the revenue and relate to the same who is the respondent herein, for assessment years 1970-71 to 1973-74. 2. The questions which the revenue wants to be referred to this court, have been set out in para. 4 of the petition and it is unnecessary to reproduce them in this order. 3. The assessee is a manufacturer of synthetic resins. In the original assessment, the ITO had accepted the assessee's claim that synthetic resins came within the ambit of 'petrochemicals'. Accordingly, higher development rebate of 35 per cent. and also deduction under s. 80-I of the Act, were allowed to the assessee. Subsequently, on the basis of a circular issued by the CBDT and the memorandum issued by the Commissioner, the ITO sought to reopen the assessment under s. 147(b) of the Act. Ultimately, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the proposed reassessment proceedings were not ...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Bahadur and anr. Vs. Tungabhadra Sugar Works (P.) Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1979
Reported in: 1979(1)KarLJ338; (1979)IILLJ49Kant
ORDER1. This revision petition arises from the order dated 30-6-1978 made in Misc. Appeal No. 42 of 1978 by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Shimoga, affirming the order dated 3-6-1978 passed on interlocutory Applications Nos. 1 & II in OS. No. 113 of 1978 by the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Shimoga. 2. The revision petitioners are plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants in OS No. 113 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Shimoga. The plaintiffs are the employees in the company of defendant-1. There is a criminal case pending trial against the plaintiffs in CC. No. 1 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimoga, in respect of charges framed against them having been accused of offences of theft in a building. Pending trial of the said charges of theft by the Magistrate Court, defendant No. 1 having appointed defendant No. 2 to hold a parallel Departmental Enquiry under the Standing Orders of defendant 1 - company against...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Abdul Sattar Vs. the Court of Munsiff, Kolar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Kant208; ILR1979KAR1008; 1979(1)KarLJ240
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. A Division Bench of this court while doubting the correctness of the decision in Ningappa Rangappa Sonnavalkar v. The Munsiff, Gokak (1968) 2 Mys LJ 620 has referred the following question to a Full Bench for opinion:-'Whether in an election petition filed by a candidate at an election to a Village Panchayat under the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959, a recount of votes can be granted by the Munsiff without a preliminary inquiry in which he is prima facie satisfied that in order to decide a dispute between the parties, inspection of ballot papers and recount thereof are necessary?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are these:In the election held on 8th July, 1978 to the Tayalur Group Panchayat, the petitioner and four others were declared elected. Mumtaz Ahmed-respondent-3-was one of the defeated candidates. He challenged the election of the petitioner before the Munsiff at Kolar under S. 13 of the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards A...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »