Karnataka Court August 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
K.S.R.T.C. Vs. P.S. Lakshminarayana Shetty and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-1983
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC23
G.N. Sabhahit, J. 1 The plaintiff sued the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle in question for damages to property caused in a motor accident. He claimed Rs. 7,381.30 P. He filed the suit in Small Causes Court, Bangalore City, at S.C. No. 860/82.2. The learned Judge took the view that since damages resulted out of a motor accident the claim for damages should have been made before the Claims Tribunal concerned. He further held that since the decree was to be given on the basis of the Insurance Policy, the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In that view, he directed that the plaint be returned for presentation to proper court. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Petition is instituted under Section 18 of the Small Causes Court Act before this Court.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner strenuously urged before me that, when the damage claimed is for more than Rs. 2,000/-, it is not necessary that the petition for damag...
Supreme Motors Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1983
Reported in: 1987(27)ELT409(Kar); 1983(2)KarLJ347; [1983]54STC308(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This revision petition raises an important and interesting question as to whether 'car seat covers' could be considered as accessories of motor vehicles within the scope of entry No. 73 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ('Act' called shortly). 'Entry No. 73. Articles used generally as as parts 13 per cent'and accessories of motor vehicles. Note : Reduced to 12 per cent by ActNo. 7 of 1981. 2. The counsel for the petitioner states that the car seat covers are accessories only of a part of the car, viz., the seats, and they, therefore, cannot be termed as accessories of motor vehicles.3. The contention demands a close analysis but before we dissect that entry, it is necessary to state the facts of the case. They are as follows : The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Act. For the year ending 31st March, 1975, the petitioner filed a return with taxable turnover of Rs. 2,50,460 relating to the sale of car seat covers. The Assistant Commi...
Sri Padmamba Large Sized Co-operative Society Vs. Labour Court and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1983
Reported in: ILR1985KAR50
ORDERMalimath, A.C.J.1. The appellant is a Cooperative Society registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The 3rd respondent was a salesman working under theAppellant Society. The 3rd respondent was dismissed from service with effect from 511-1973 by the appellant. The dispute raised by the 3rd respondent was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court to decide as to whether the management was justified in dismissing the workman and as to the relief which the workman is entitled to. The Labour Court made an Award on the11th of January 1980 holding that the dismissal was not justified and directing reinstatement of the 3rd respondent workman in service with effect from 6th November 1978 with continuity of service and back wages.2. The appellant challenged the said Award before this Court in W.P. No 8011 of 1980. On the11th of November 1980 Justice Bopanna, before whom the Writ Petition came up for consideration, allowed...
Kampli Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1983
Reported in: 1984(2)ECC367; 1984(16)ELT87(Kar)
ORDER1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30-1-1978 (Exhibit-F) of the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madras (hereinafter referred to as the Collector) in Appeal No. 199 of 1978 affirming the order dated 9-3-1977 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, I.D.O., Bellary (hereinafter referred to as the Assistant Collector) in order No. V/1/30/32/74 B. 1 (Exhibit-E). 2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of sugar and is, therefore, exigible to excise duties under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The factory of the petitioner that manufactures sugar was in existence and was working during the 'base period' defined in the Explanation to Notification No. 189/73, dated 4-10-1973 (Exhibit-A) issued by the Central Government under sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed under the Act which allowed ce...
B. Janaradhana Bhat Vs. Lalitha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Kant120
1. This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment and order dated 31-1-1981 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge, Mangalore, in M. C., No. 9/78 on his file, dismissing the petition under 0. 7. R. 11, C P. C.2. The husband instituted a petition for obtaining a decree that his marriage with the respondent in the petition was, a nullity as the respondent was -suffering from unsoundness of- mind and that. the marriage was brought about by practicing fraud on him by concealing such fact.3. The case was registered at M. C No. 9/78 and notice was served on the respondent. On entering appearance for counsel filed , the statement, of objection and there after the matter was fixed a evidence. It was adjured from time to time for adducing evidence. on -30-9-1980 the husband's evidence was commenced before the learned Civil Judge. It continued on 1-10-1980, 28-10-1980. and 4-11-1980 and it Was further, adjourned for evidence an 11-4 -1980 on which date be learned Civil Judge stopped furt...
Tejraj M. JaIn and Etc. Vs. Karnataka State Agro Corporation Products ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Kant146
ORDER1. As these cases aye intimately connected and raise common questions of law, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. 1, therefore, propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. A wholly owned Karnataka Government Company called the Karnataka State Agro Corn Products Limited, Bangalore-respondent No. 1 which itself is a subsidiary of another wholly owned Karnataka Government company called Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is inter alia engaged in the manufacture of energy food, for the manufacture of which, it inter alia buys a pulse called 'Bangal gram'. In tender notification No. KSCP/PDEF/45/83-84 dt. - 12-5-1983 (Annexure-A) the Executive Director of respondent No. 1 called for tenders from intending suppliers for the supply of 650 metric tons of Bengal gram on the terms and conditions stipulated in that notification. The last day and time for receipt of tenders was 1 p.m. on 4-6-1983 and the time for ...
Gadi Cheluvaraya Chetty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1983
Reported in: [1984]150ITR60(KAR); [1984]150ITR60(Karn)
Rajasekharamurthy, J. 1. The common question referred to this court by the Tribunal in these nine references under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (shortly called 'the Act'), reads : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the settlement made on August 12, 1960, by the applicant was revocable and, therefore, whole of the income of Messrs Cheluva & Co. was assessable in the hands of the applicant, for assessment year in question ?' 2. The facts necessary for answering the references are these : The assessee is an individual by name Gadi Cheluvaraya Chetty. He was the proprietor of a business firm run under the name and style of Messrs Cheluva & Co., in Russel Market, Bangalore. On August 12, 1960, the assessee executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife, six daughters and his son-in-law called Chandra Mohan settling 1/9th undivided share in the business of 'Cheluva and Co., on each of them.' 3. On March 15, 1961, the asses...
British Physical Laboratories India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector, Dire ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1983
Reported in: 1983LC1793D(Karnataka); 1983(14)ELT2270(Kar)
ORDER1. M/s. British Physical Laboratories India Limited, Petitioner No. 1, is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and has its registered office at Palghat, State of Kerala and has its Head Office at M. G. Road, Bangalore City. Sri M. A. Uppal, who represents petitioner No. 1 as its 'Finance Director', is the second petitioner in the case. In the course of my order hereafter, I will refer to petitioner No. 1 who is the principal petitioner as the petitioner in the case. 2. The petitioner is principally engaged in the manufacture and sale of sophisticated electronic instruments and equipments at its factories situated at Palghat and Avalahali, Old Madras Road, Bangalore Distt. From 1982 the petitioner has started the manufacture of television sets and video cassette recorders (hereinafter referred to as T. Vs and VCRs). The petitioner has its sales offices at Bangalore, Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi. 3. The manufacturing places at Palghat, Avalahali and portions o...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-ii Vs. Mysore Petro-chemical Ltd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1983
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Kar)177; [1984]145ITR416(KAR); [1984]145ITR416(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The following question has been referred under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who directed the Income-tax Officer to allow the relief under Section 80J at full 7 1/2 % of the capital employed even though the under taking worked only for 1 1/2 months ?'2. The simple facts behind the legal formulation are as follows : The assesses company claimed relief under s. 80J of the Act for the full assessment year 1977-78, although the company started production only on May 16, 1976. The assessee's accounting year ended on June 30, 1976. The ITO allowed the relief pro rata for 1 1/2 months subsequent to the commencement of the commercial production. The assessee appealed against that order. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the relief due to the assessee cannot be pro rata reduced for the period of commercial production and the...
Pratap Singh Dardi Vs. Government of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1983
Reported in: ILR1986KAR24
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this Petition in which a former member of the Indian Administrative Service (member of the Service) has prayed for quashing the order made by the President imposing the penalty of dismissal from service against him, the following question of law arises for consideration :Whether an order made by the President under Rule 9(4) (ii)(b) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, imposing penalty of dismissal from service, against a member of the Service, merely expressing agreement with the advice tendered by the Union Public Service Commission, after considering the reply furnished by the member of the Service to the show-cause notice issued by the President proposing to impose the penalty, is invalid on the ground that it is not a speaking order?2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The petitioner was a member of the Indian Administrative Service allotted to the State of Karnataka. A departmental inquiry was instituted against hi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »