Karnataka Court November 1984 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.
Binny Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1984
Reported in: 1985(6)ECC71; 1985LC690(Karnataka); 1986(25)ELT154(Kar)
ORDER1. M/s. Binny Limited, a public company incorporated under the Companies Act, which is the petitioner, is engaged in the manufacture of textile goods in one of its composite textile mills called 'Bangalore Woollen Cotton and Silk Mills' situated at Bangalore City. Prior to 24th July, 1972 the petitioner had manufactured 17,381-30 kgs. of blended yearn ('yarn') with 50% terene, (and) consumed the same in the manufacture of a fabric called 'Cascade'. 2. 'Blended yarn' and 'fabrics' were dutiable to excise duty under tariff items Nos. 18-E, and 19(1)(2)(sic) respectively of the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944 (Central Act 1 of 1944) ('the Act'). But, under rule 96V and W of the Central Excise Rules of 1944 ('the Rules) and Notification No. 62/72 CE dated 17th March, 1972 issued thereto by Government, the collection of excise duty on blended yarn was postponed to the point the clearance of 'fabric' made out of such yarn, which is called as 'compounded levy'. Admittedly Government...
Associated Electronic and Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistan ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1984
Reported in: 1985(4)ECC11; 1986(6)LC68(Karnataka); 1985(22)ELT368(Kar); ILR1985KAR3716
This rule is directed against the claim of the Central excise authorities for payment of excise duties in respect of 'phonocom'. It is alleged by the petitioner that they are nothing but telephone and therefore not (sic) exempted from duties. It has been alleged that 'phonocom' cannot be a telephone under the Indian Telephone Act and it is well known that business of telephone can only be carried out by the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department. In any case, this 'phonocom' is manufactured by a private company for intercommunication system and therefore this cannot be called as telephone as manufactured by the Government of India. 1. In that view of the matter there is no merit in the submission made by the petitioner. 2. The rule is therefore discharged. There will be no order as to costs. 3. I am told that M. N. Roy, J., took similar view in C.R. 15407 (W) of 1976 Radio Supply Stores (P). Ltd. v. Union of India decided on 13-5-1982.' 11. But, Sri. Rangarajan has urged that this ruli...
Kariyappa Vs. Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR22
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has challenged the validity of the notifications issued under Section 3(1) and Section 3(3) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Lands for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') acquiring the land in question bearing No. 192/lA situated at In norugollahalli Village, Kanakapura Taluk, Bangalore, belonging to the Petitioner.2. Sri. Rangaraj, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, urged the following contentions for consideration :(i) that the preliminary notification is vitiated and is liable to be quashed as respondents 1 to 3 have not followed the guidelines issued by the State Government for the purpose of proposing the land for acquisition; and(ii) that the notification issued under Section 3(4) of the Act, is vitiated as the Deputy Commissioner has not passed the order in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act. There is no difficulty in acceptin...
Hanuman Transport Co. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1315
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases, we propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. The Hanuman Transport Company (P) Limited, Udipi, a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, which is the common Petitioner before us, is engaged in the business of providing passenger transport facilities in the State of Karnataka in accordance with the permits issued by the Transport authorities functioningunder the motor Vehicles Act of 1939 (Central Act TV of 1939) ('the Act') and the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, ('the Rules') framed thereunder by Government. For carrying on and augmenting its business, the Petitioner makes applications under the Act and the Rules before the transport authorities.3. In the Rules that came into force on 1-7-1963 (vide Rule 2 of the Rules) fees for making different applications had been prescribed by Government at the rates stipulated therein. In notification No.GSR 353 dated 25-10-1...
Dr. H. Nirmala Vs. State of Karnataka and Karnataka Public Service Com ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3462
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner, Dr. (Smt.) H. Nirmala, was selected as Lady Medical Officer in the Department of Health and Family Welfare Services under the 1st Respondent-State of Karnataka. She was selected by the 2nd Respondent-Karnataka Public Service Commission as per the notification dated 15-3-1980 which is at Annexure-A to the Petition. Thereafter, she was appointed as a Lady Medical Officer by an order dated 9-7-1980 which is at Annexure-B to the Petition. She joined for duty however on 21-8-1980 as evanesced by Annexure-D to the Petition, pursuant to the posting order at Annexure-C dated 7th August, 1980. She has been continued in service at her posting. However, a show cause notice dated 19th November, 1981, was issued to her. In that show cause notice, a true copy of which is at Annexure-G to the Petition, it was stated that the 2nd respondent suspected that the petitioner had given false information in regard to her family income and obtained selection for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›