Karnataka Court July 1983 Judgments

Shantilal and Brothers Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1984(1)KarLJ69; [1985]59STC178(Kar)

ORDERJagannatha Shetty, J.1. Each of these petitions under article 226 of the Constitution raises the same question regarding the constitutional validity of section 6B(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('Act' for short) as amended by Karnataka Act No. 13 of 1982, which provides for the levy of non-half per cent. of 'turnover tax' on every dealer whose total turnover in a year exceeds rupees one lakh. 2. In order to appreciate the contention urged in regard to the said question, it will be necessary to have regard to some of the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 2(1)(u-1) defines 'taxable turnover' to mean 'the turnover on which a dealer shall be liable to pay a tax as determined after making such deductions from his total turnover and in such manner as may be prescribed, but shall not include the turnover of purchase or sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export of the goods out of the territory of India or in the course of import of the ...

Shankerappa Vs. Sushilabai

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1984Kant112

Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal by the defendant is directed against a decree for maintenance dated 30-9-1980 made in 0. S. No. 95/78 on the file -of the, Civil Judge, Gulbarga. This appeal is in the list of cases for admission. -The appeal is admitted and with the consent of learned counsel on both sides taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this judgment. The records of the proceedings of the Court below are also before us.2. plaintiff. Sushilabai, institituted the suit claiming separate maintenance from Shankarappa alias Shivashankar, the defendant. alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of the defendant, their marriage having been performed on 11-5-1961 at Hagargundagi village of Gulbarga Taluk. She alleged that after the marriage the parties lived together as man and wife for some time; but thereafter The defedant, who is an Engineer in the service of Government left the plaintiff in the house of his parant's at Aland and began to live separately at the place...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bangalore Turf Club Limited

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Kar)162; [1984]150ITR23(KAR); [1984]150ITR23(Karn)

Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The question that has been referred for the opinion of this court at the instance of the Department under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, reads:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in law in holding that depreciation should be allowed on roads ?'2. The facts behind the legal formulation are as follows : The assessee is a turf club which has been formed to run races for the benefit of jockeys, trainees, horse owners, and to entertain others. For the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee had incurred a sum of Rs. 5,40,862 on asphalting of roads within the race course premises. The assessee claimed that it was a revenue expenditure. The assessing authority upon perusal of the bills disallowed some part of the claim on the ground that there was capital expenditure in the sum of Rs. 1,80,000. Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the assessment relating to the said capital expenditure at Rs. 1,80,000 but al...

Gurubasappa Siddappa Kampli (by L.Rs.) and anr. Vs. Nagendrappa Veerab ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1984Kant1

Sabhahit, J.1. Pursuant to the reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court, Hon'ble the Chief Justice has placed this Miscellaneous second appeal for disposal before this bench as it involves a question of law of considerable importance.2. The question of law arises this way :Plaintiff instituted L. C. No. 224 of 1967 for possession and for mesne profits against four defendants. Defendant 3 was duly served but remained absent and he was Placed ex parte on 2-9-1968 by the Principal Munsiff, Ranebennur, before whom the suit was instituted and was pending for hearing. The suit was subsequently dismissed on 2-6-1971 for default of the plaintiff. Plaintiff instituted Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 1971 on 17-6-1971 before the learned Munsiff. Defendant 3 remained absent again in the proceeding and he ultimately died on 23-3-1973. The miscellaneous application was allowed on 29-91973 and the suit was restored to file on 15-10-1973. In the suit, I. A. No. II was instituted on 2...

G.P. Ganapaiah Maiya and ors. Vs. M.T.R. Associates and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1986]59CompCas359(Kar)

M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This petition was admitted after hearing the parties on April 20, 1982. On that date, there was no dispute between the parties regarding the jurisdiction of this court to entertain this petition. However, having regard to the contentions raised in Company Petition No. 4 of 1982, paper publication was deferred. That is evidenced by the order sheet of the court. Thereafter, numerous adjournments were taken to report settlement out of court. 2. On June 8, 1983, on an application made by the petitioners, a Commissioner was appointed to make an inventory of all movables, etc., found in the only asset owned by the first respondent firm (since dissolved - deemed company under the Companies Act, 1956, for purposes of winding-up) and his report was also received in court and no objection was received on that report. 3. On the request of parties, on July 18, 1983, the case was set down for hearing regarding advertisement of the petition. That was with the object o...

S. Shankarappa Vs. Inspecting Asst. Commr. of Income-tax, Acquisition ...

Court: Karnataka

Puttaswamy, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged notice No. CR 62/8231/76-77 Acq./B, dated 18-7-1977 (Ex. E) issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Acquisition Range, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the IAC'), respondent No. 1, purporting to be under Section 269D(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. One Smt. Parvathamma and her daughter, Smt. Siddamma of Bangalore, were the owners of certain immovable properties situated in New Tharagupet, Bangalore, which are fully described in the schedule to the gift deed dated January 26, 1976 (Ex. A.). Smt. Parvathamma and Smt. Siddamma gifted the said property to the petitioner under the gift deed dated November 26, 1976 (Ex. A), and the GTO has also levied gift-tax on that gift under the G.T. Act. But, before completing the proceedings under the G.T. Act, the IAC has issued the impugned notice proposing to...

Venkataramana Prabhu Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1(1985)ACC63

K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2nd May, 1977 of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No. 73 of 1976 and connected appeals (Exhibit-E) affirming the Resolution dated 22-11-19-75 of the Regional Transport Authority, Dakshina Kannada (have in after referred to as the R.T.A.) on subject No. 152 of 75-6 (Exhibit-A).2. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the R.T.A. suo motu called for applications for grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Coondapur to Mangalore. The length of the route is about 100 K.Ms. and is a 'medium route' within the meaning of that term occurring in Rule 104-A(1) (b) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). In response to the notification issued by the R.T.A., ...

State of Karnataka Vs. Taj Commercial Corporation

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1984]57STC91(Kar)

Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These two revision petitions have been preferred by the State of Karnataka against the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 18th July, 1977, made in S.T.A. Nos. 142 and 143 of 1977. 2. The respondent is a firm which has been registered as a dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. For the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Mangalore, passed the assessment orders in respect of the turnover of the firm. Against the said orders, the assessee preferred appeals challenging the legality of the assessment orders before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Mangalore Division. Those appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation, without going into the merits of the matter. Thereafter, the assessee moved the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration) in revision under section 21(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the revisions on the ground that he...

K. Saptasagare Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi Sub-division, Raiba ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1984Kant127; 1983(2)KarLJ479

ORDER1. Petitioner Shrimant K. Saptasagare is aggrieved by the order of rejection of this nomination passed by the Returning Officer, Raibag Sahakari Sakkare Karkhana Niyamit, Raibag dated 15-7-1983. He claimed to be a member of the said Society which is respondent 2 in these proceedings. It is one of those Societies which falls into the class enumerated under Rule 14 (b), Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The sole ground for rejection of his nomination paper is that the petitioner's name was not in the Voters List. It is further stated in the order which is at Annexure C to the petition that the Managing Director of the factory had informed by his letter that the Board of Directors of the factory had not confirmed the membership in the Second Meeting. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for quashing Annexure-B, the calendar of events for election to the M...

Sundareshan Vs. Superintendent of Police, Kolar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1983(2)KarLJ523; (1984)ILLJ133Kant

ORDER1. In these writ petitions the petitioners who are Police Constables, have questioned the legality of the order by which they have been suspended pending departmental enquiry ordered against them. 2. It is not the case of the petitioners that the Superintendent of Police, who has passed the order is not the competent authority to pass the order. The contents of the order indicate that as departmental enquiry has been ordered against the petitioners in connection with the allegations referred to in the impugned order the authority considered that the petitioners should be placed under suspension pending enquiry. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that rules of natural justice demand that before placing a civil servant under suspension pending enquiry, the civil servant should be given an opportunity of making representation against the making of an order placing him under suspension. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon a Division Bench judgment o...