Karnataka Court February 1980 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Karnataka-ii Vs. B. Kempanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1980
Reported in: [1980]126ITR825(KAR); [1980]126ITR825(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. These are two sets of references made under s. 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax and the assessee. The questions referred are four in number and relate to the penalties imposed under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act for default in filing the returns within the time without reasonable cause. The matter relates to the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69. T.R. Cs. No. 142, 144 and 146 of 1978 are at the instance of the department and the other three are at the instance of the assessee. The questions referred are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the ground of the department that the appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and consequently the appeals to the Tribunal were incompetent (2) If the answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmatives, whether the Tribunal, on the facts and in the...
Tag this Judgment!K. Anand Rao Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1980
Reported in: [1980]126ITR719(KAR); [1980]126ITR719(Karn); [1981]5TAXMAN320(Kar)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J. 1. In these three references made under s. 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), common question arises for consideration. The references are in relation to the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, the relevant valuation dates being the March 31, 1970, and succeeding years. In relation to the first two years, there was a rectification made by the WTO on the ground that the value of certain assets had been wrongly exempted from the computeration of the net wealth. In the third year, the assessment itself was made without giving any exemption in relation thereto. The appeals preferred to the AAC and the Appellate Tribunal were not successful and at the instance of the assesses these references have been made. The question referred to our opinion is as follows : 'On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the right of the assesses to receive 10 candies of arecanut per year as owelty is entitled to exemption under secti...
Tag this Judgment!Mahababoob Transport Company Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Kant30
ORDERIn this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 26-12-1974 passed by tit e Central Government in exercise of its power under Rule .54 r/w Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called the Rules).1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows:-The mining area in question is situate in Karadikolla a Forest area in Sandur Taluk, measuring, 109 acres. It is not in dispute that the third respondent was granted a mining lease in respect of the aforesaid area in question for a period of 20 years, commencing from the year 17-9-1958). The period of mining lease was to expire on 17-9-197-3. Long' before the expiry of the period, the third respondent made an application on 19-6-1970 under Rule 22 of the Rules for renewing the mining lease The State Government sought for prior approval of the Central Government under Section 8 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and D...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Coconut Industries Vs. the State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1980
Reported in: 1980(2)KarLJ76; [1980]46STC404(Kar)
Rama Jois, J.1. The sixteen sales tax appeals are preferred by two dealers in desiccated coconut, aggrieved by the orders of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes made in exercise of his suo motu power of revision under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), setting aside the orders of the assessing authority for the relevant assessment years exempting their inter-State sales turnover of desiccated coconut from sales tax under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'), and bringing the same to tax under section 8 of the Central Act. Four revision petitions are preferred by the State aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal upholding the claim of the respondent-firm therein, which is also a dealer in desiccated coconut, that inter-State sales of desiccated coconut are not exigible to tax under the Central Act. All these cases were heard together and are being dispos...
Tag this Judgment!Haunsabai Vs. Balkrishna Krishna Badigar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ110; ILR1980KAR612; 1980(2)KarLJ158
ORDER1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16th November, 1978 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Cr. Revision Petition No. 25/1978 setting aside the order dated 3rd July 1978, passed by the Principal Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Hukeri, in Misc. Petition No. 75/76, wife of the respondent has filed this revision. 2. The revision petitioner, wife of the respondent, made a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance from the respondent, her husband, on the ground that he had ill-treated and driven out of the house and refused to maintain her in spite of being possessed of sufficient means to provide the maintenance. She also alleged, the respondent, her husband, had taken another wife in marriage. She claimed Rs. 150 per month as maintenance. 3. Respondent denied all these allegations and further contended the petitioner had gone to her parents house on her own and had not returned. He also offered to maintain her if she lived with him. Regar...
Tag this Judgment!Appanna and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Kant113; 1980(2)KarLJ92
ORDER1. In these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have challenged the order of Government bearing No. PWD 227 IIB 77 (P) dated 26-9-1979 (Exhibit L) according administrative sanction for the construction of a tank near Murkani, Kasba Hoblk Kanakapura. Taluka, Bangalore District. For brevity and convenience, this Site will be hereinafter referred as site B.2. A stream or called as a `halla' in Kannada joining the river Arkavathi, a tributary of river Cauveri, runs across several village of Kaseba Hobli of Kanakapura Taluk. For some time past, stated to be for more then two decades, there is a proposal to construct a tank or a bund to store - water that flows in that stream and thus provide irrigation facilities to certain parts of the said area. According to the surveys and investigations conducted by the technical wing of Public Works Department, a tank can be constructed at `B' site and also at - a nearby place called as Karekal Vodu For brevity and conveni...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Srinivasa Educational Society Vs. the Chief Secretary, Youth and E ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Kant165
ORDER1. The petitioner is an Educational Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was running Ghana Tarragona Girls High School at Hotshot from the academic year 1972-73. The said School was given recognition and also aided under the Grant-in-Aid Code of the Government of Karnataka in the Department of Education pertaining to High Schools. It is alleged, by the petitioner-Society that on account of some politically motivated representations made by the Teachers and a few other politicians, the 2nd respondent. Director of Public Instruction visited Hoskote and thereafter the 2nd Respondent Director of Public Instruction passed the impugned order, operative portion of which is as follows:'Sri Srinivasa Education Society registered under the Societies Registration Act exists only for name sake. This interference has been established by the joint Director of Public Instruction, Ban galore Division, Ban galore, also in ...
Tag this Judgment!Papinakanahalli Venkanna and ors. Vs. Janadri Venkanna Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Kant20; ILR1980KAR147; 1981(1)KarLJ56
Rama Jois, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court, to whom the above civil revision petition was referred by a single Judge under Section 9 of the High Court Act, has referred the following question of law for opinion of the Full Bench.'Before maintaining a petition for eviction under Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, is it necessary for the landlord to determine the contractual tenancy by issuing to the tenant a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act?'2. The order of reference was made on 11th July, 1979. Sri Suresh S. Joshi learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above question has to be answered in the negative in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal decided oil 23rd August. 1979, ILR (1979) Kant 165 Paras 1 and 6: : [1980]1SCR334 . The said decision sets at rest, the controversial question relating to the necessity or otherwise of quit notice, terminating the tenancy contractual ...
Tag this Judgment!Lingamma Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Kant18; ILR1981KAR161; 1981(2)KarLJ177
Malimatir, J.1. The Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice and Justice Bopanna has referred the following question to the Full Bench :'Has the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976, the power to make interim orders like an order appointing a Receiver for the properties in dispute during the pendency of an appeal before it?'The petitioner was granted an extent of 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 100 of Gandalu Village in Mandya Taluk by the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya by his order dated 1st July, 1963. The said order was challenged in appeal by the 6th respondent before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the grant by his order dated 26th Feb, 1964. On a further appeal by the petitioner, the Divisional Commissioner, by his order dated 20th Oct, 1965 set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and remanded the case with certain directions. After remand the Deputy Commissioner by his order dat...
Tag this Judgment!i.T.C. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT690(Kar); 1980(2)KarLJ39
1. This Writ Petition is filed by India Tobacco Company Limited (a company duly incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956), and by one of its shareholders. The Petitioners herein shall be referred to as the Company in the course of this order for convenience. The respondents are the Union of India represented by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance) (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue), the Superintendent of Central Excise, Concurrent Assessment and Inspection Group having his office in the Company's factory at Bangalore, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, III Division, having his office at Bangalore City and the Appellate Collector of Central Excise at Madras having his office at Madras. 2. The Company is a manufacturer of tobacco products. The company has several factories in different parts of India. One of its factories is situated at Bangalore and tobacco products like cigarettes, tobacco and other tobacco products manufac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›