Karnataka Court July 1982 Judgments
Canara Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Ex ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1982
Reported in: 1983LC51D(Karnataka); 1983(12)ELT97(Kar); 1983(1)KarLJ289
ORDER1. This petition is disposed of by the following order at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice to respondents and after hearing the Counsel for parties. 2. The facts leading to this petition briefly stated are as follows : 3. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Mangalore. It manufactures tread rubber out of natural rubber which is supplied to it by the Forest Department of the Government of Karnataka. The tread rubber manufactured by the petitioner-company is liable to excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It pays levy under tariff item No. 16A(2) of the schedule to the Act. By notification No. 54/1979 dated 1-3-1979 the Government of India fixed the levy at 35 per cent ad valorem with effect from 1-3-1979 as against 36 per cent which was the earlier rate of levy. In the result, the petitioner-company was paying duty at 35 per cent on its product. Ho...
Tag this Judgment!Government Tool Room and Training Centre, Rajajinagar Vs. Asstt. Colle ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1982
Reported in: 1984(3)ECC175; 1982(10)ELT898(Kar)
1. This is a writ petition of the Government Tool Room and Training Centre an institution set up by the Government of Karnataka with the object of contributing to the development of small scale and other industries in India. The institution is run with Danish collaboration. 2. The petitioner manufactures tools like press tools, moulds, die casting dies, jigs and fixtures etc., both in service Centre and Training Centre to which the institution is divided into. The products of the institution were listed and sent to the 1st respondent - Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, for classification under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thereafter, the Superintendent of Central Excise, II Division, Bangalore, sought opinion in respect of the classification from D.G.T.D. and Central Machine Tools Institute. The former was of the opinion that the moulds and die casting dies manufactured by the petition...
Tag this Judgment!C. Chennaiah Vs. K.P. Mahadevappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Kant90
1. The appellant, having suffered a decree in O.S.No.365 of 1976 on the file of the Principal First Munsiff, Mysore, and being unsuccessful in his challenge to that decree before the Civil Judge, Mysore, in R.A.No.55 of 1980 on the file of that court, has preferred this second appeal questioning the correctness of the findings of those two courts. The respondent herein was the plaintiff in the trial Court and respondent in the first appellate Court.2. The plaintiff's suit was for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. His case was that the plaint site had been granted to him by the City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore (Board); that possession of the same had been handed over to him on 25-5-1975; that since then he was in peaceful possession of the same; that he was making arrangements to put up a house; that the defendant had no manner of right, title or interest over the same; that inspite of i...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur and ors. Vs. K.N. Nagaraja
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Kant111
1. Appellants 1 to 3 herein were defendants 1, 3 and 4 respectively in O.S. No.554 of 1968 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Tumkur. The respondent herein had filed that suit for a declaration of his title in respect of a well (fully described in the plaint) and for a permanent injunction against these appellants restraining them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the said well.2. The plaintiff's case was that the well is situated in Sy. No. 3/3 of Village Devarayanadurga of which he is the owner; that the well exclusively belongs to him; that the defendants have absolutely no manner of right, title or interest over the same and that at the instance of these appellants the second defendant in the suit was making preparations to put up a pump-house in order to install a pumpset in the well. The contention of these appellants was that the well is not of the exclusive ownership of the plaintiff as claimed by him, that it is a well in the use of the public and the p...
Tag this Judgment!Jyothi Home Industries Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1982
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ201Kant
1. These writ petitions are disposed of by a common order since they relate to a notification issued by the State Government under the provisions of S. 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (in short the Act). 2. W.P. No. 20889 of 1982, though not fixed for hearing, was brought up for hearing at the request of the learned counsel, Mr. Holla, for the petitioner therein who has also appeared in some of the connected writ petitions listed for hearing. 3. The workmen benefited by the notification were permitted to come on record in these petitions as additional respondents and I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the workmen, Mr. M. C. Narasimhan, and the learned Government Advocate. 4. The petitioners are owners of beedi factories. They manufacture and sell beedies within the State of Karnataka. Under Annexure-A filed in W.P.s. Nos. 2309 to 2313 of 1982, the Government of karnataka, i.e., the 1st respondent therein, issued the impugned notificati...
Tag this Judgment!Thambuswamy Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Kant203; 1982(2)KarLJ553
ORDER1. This revision petition is listed for admission for this day. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the revision petition is deemed to have been set down for final hearing and the revision petition is heard on merits.2. The source of this revision petition is an order dated 17-10-1981 made by the XIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in L. A. C. No. 886/1981 on his file rejecting a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Special Land Acquisition Officer B. D. A., Bangalore. The revision petitioner is the first claimant in the above land acquisition case. In all there are five claimants including the revision petitioner. Among them, claimants 4 and 5 were placed ex parte. They appeared to have filed an application for setting the order placing them ex parte aside. That application came to be allowed on 14-9-1981. However, the case could not be proceeded with since all the claimants were absent. The learned City Ci...
Tag this Judgment!H. Mohamed Khan and ors. Vs. Andhara Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Kant73; [1985]57CompCas618(Kar); ILR1983KAR252
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the legal representatives of the original defendant-3 challenging the judgment and decree dated March 22, 1974, made against them in O.S.No.86 of 1969 by the Second Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City.2. Respondent-1, Andhra Bank Ltd. since nationalised and now called as the Andhra Bank Ltd. since nationalised and now called as the Andhra Bank ('the Bank') sued defendants 1 to 3 to recover a sum of Rs. 1,63,330/- on the following allegations :That defendant-1 Seth Menghraj Parasuram ('Parasuram') was having financial accommodation with the Bank under various sets of accounts. As security for the amounts advanced he has endorsed promissory notes and other securities in favour of the Bank executed in his favour of his customers. On April 4, 1966, defendant-2 Abdul Jabbar executed a promissory notes in favour of Parasuram along with a consideration receipt agreeing to pay on demand to him or to his order the sum of Rupees 1,20,0...
Tag this Judgment!Sarvothama Choorya Etc. Vs. G.M. Gopala Bhat Etc.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Kant107; 1983(1)KarLJ123
Malimath, J.1. These three civil revision petitions have been referred to the Division Bench by the learned single Judge on the ground that they involve important question of jurisdiction in the matter of execution of orders made by courts under the then existing provisions of S. 42 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The necessary facts for understanding the contentions urged in these cases may briefly be stated as follows:-The respondents in these three cases who are the landlords applied to the court under S. 42 of the Act as it then stood for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of lands leased to the petitioners. In the year 1972, the court had made orders in favour of the contesting respondents-landlords under Section 42 of the Act as it then stood directing that the specified amounts of rent be paid by the respective petitioners-tenants. There-after, the respondents-decree-holders filed execution case Nos. 273, 314 and 463 of 1977 re...
Tag this Judgment!Mico Employees' Assn. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-1982
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3522
Chandrasekhar, C.J.This is an appeal from the order of Bopanna, J., dismissing W. P. No. 20435 of 1981. The petitioners therein have presented this appeal. For the sake of convenience, they will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners.In the Writ Petition, the petitioners had impugned the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) catered into between the management of the Motor Industries Co , Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Management) and the MICO Employees Association. The petitioners had prayed for quashing the settlement which has been produced as Annexure-A to the Writ Petition and to declare that such settlement was not a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act and could not prevent the petitioners or other workmen employed by the Management from raising any industrial dispute in respect of or in any matters covered by the settlement agreed to by the Management but given up by the impugned settlement an...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator, High Court of Karnataka Vs. V. Viswanathan and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1982
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas70(Kar); 1982(2)KarLJ513
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The above applications filed in Company Petition No. 6 of 1973 are disposed of by the following order as they substantially involve common questions of law fact as well as they are inter-connected. For purposes of disposal of Company Application No. 128 of 1977 made by the official liquiditor, the facts stated therein may be taken as the main application. The prayer in the said application is : 1. for a declaration that the pledge of certain machinery by the company in liquidation, namely, M/s. Sriranga Fertiliser and Industries P. Ltd., in favour of Challam, who is respondent No. 5 in that application, is a fraudulent preference; 2. for a declaration that the pledge is void as against the official liquidator; and 3. for a direction to respondent No. 6, Gnanashekharan, to return the pledged machinery to the official liquiditor, he having purchased the same from respondent No. 5, Challam. 2. I must straightaway state that these prayers cannot be granted as I sh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »