Karnataka Court December 1984 Judgments

Gundappa Achari Vs. Seshappa Upadhyaya

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR283; 1985(1)KarLJ362

Kulkarni, J.1.This second appeal by judgment-debtor-2. Gundappa Achari is directed against the order dated 19-2-1977 passed by the Civil Judge, Udupi , in Execution Appeal No. 9 of 1976 affirming the order dated 18-10-1976 passed by the Munsiff, Coondapur, in R. E.P. No. 158 of 1966 over-ruling the objections of judgment debtor-2 and ordering the execution to proceed.The material facts leading to the case are as under :-S.No. 83/13 of Pandeswar village measuring 24 cents originally belonged to one Kasi Holla. The said owner Kasi Holla granted on mulgeni the said 24 cents of land to one Subraya Aksali, the father-in-law of judgment debtor-2, under a deed dated 9-12-1912, with a condition that the mulgeni tenant Subraya Aksali should not transfer his rights to any one. The mulgani tenant Subraya Aksali executed a registered deed of settlement on 28-3-1939 in favour or his wife Sarasamma and his only son Krishnaya Achari and retained for himself the right to enjoy the saidproperty-during ...

Basavaraj Chenna Naik Vs. General Manager

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR2172; 1985(2)KarLJ371

ORDERNarayana Rai Kudoor, J.1. This Criminal Revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') is directed against the Judgment and order dated 17th January, 1983, passed by the 1st Additional JMFC, Sirsi, in Crl. Mis. No. 16/82 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioners and several others under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). I shall refer to the parties in the course of this order as they were referred to in the Court below for the sake of convenience.2. Few facts relevant for the disposal of this Revision may be stated as under :The petitioners are the employees of the opponent industry Karnataka Veneers Limited, Kavachur, in Siddapur Taluk of North Kanara District. The Government of Karnataka fixed the minimum wages payable to different classes of employees in plywood industries as per the notification dated 16th May, 1978 published in the Official Gazette on 30-5-1978 commencing with effect from 1-6-1978....

Sujeeth P.J. Ferrao Vs. the University of Mysore and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. This is a petition by a student of the Adichunchanagiri Institute of Technology, Chickmagalur. He is aggrieved by the memorandum dt. 24-11-1984 issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the 1st respondent University of Mysore. By the said memorandum, the Vice-Chancellor of the said University has kept the petitioner under suspension with a direction that he should not enter the campus of the College in question until the conclusion of the enquiry against the petitioner for alleged acts of gross indiscipline in the campus as reported to the Vice-Chancellor by the Principal of the College. By the same memorandum, the Vice-Chancellor has also constituted an enquiry Committee which is required to look into the matter in question and submit a report to him apparently to enable him to take action in accordance with S. 62 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) if warranted.2. The challenge is on many grounds touching upon both power and jurisdiction...

West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1985(4)ECC324; ILR1985KAR644; 1985(1)KarLJ227

ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal South Regional Bench at Madras, has referred the following question : 'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, duty paid wrapper paper used in the packing of other varieties of paper is entitled to the benefit of the special procedure for movement of duty paid materials, or component parts or finished products for use in the more convenient distribution of other varieties of paper, in terms of Rule 56A(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ?' 2. The facts behind the legal formulation are these : The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of different varieties of paper; one of them is a wrapper paper which is exclusively used for captive consumption. The wrapper paper falls within Tariff Item No. 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It is also included in Item No. 8 of the notification is...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Ramaiah Reddy

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Kar)121; [1986]158ITR611(KAR); [1986]158ITR611(Karn); [1986]24TAXMAN764(Kar)

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has referred the following three questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the acquisition in this case consisted of two different transactions, viz., the acquisition of the land on the one hand and other assets on the other hand (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the excess realised on the trees and other assets on account of acquisition of the land constitute agricultural income and, therefore, exempt from taxation (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the cost of acquisition of the land has to be taken as on April 1, 1970, when agricultural land came to be considered as assets within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. For the asse...

Employment Officer, Mandya Vs. S. Sevarinathan

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1986Kant167; 1985(1)KarLJ153

ORDER1. This is a revision by the judgment-debtor against the order dt. 18-10-1979 passed by the Civil Judge Mandya in Execution Case 27 of 1979.2. The decree holder obtained a succession certificate in respect of Rs. 4,200/- due as death-cum-retirement gratuity and Rs. 202/- towards arrears of salary due to the deceased Miss Arokiamary, sister of the decree-holder. As the said amount was not paid to the decree-holder he sued out execution.3. The judgment-debtor resisted that the succession certificate did not amount to a decree or an order, which could be executed under 0. 21 of the C.P.C.4. The lower Court held that it amounted to an order, which was executable under O. 21 of the C.P.C. and rejected the contentions of the judgment-debtor. Hence, the revision.5. The word 'decree' has been defined in S. 2(2) of the C.P.C. as -'decree' means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it conclusively determines the rights of the parties with re...

Mac Charles Brothers (Private) Limited and anr. Vs. the Commercial Tax ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR3294; [1986]63STC452(Kar)

K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. This case was posted before me for orders on 3rd December, 1984, on the interim prayer made by the petitioner. But, as agreed to by both sides, this case was treated as listed for final hearing on 3rd December, 1984, and was accordingly taken up for hearing on that day and then continued today also. 2. M/s. Mac Charles Brothers (Private) Limited - petitioner-1 who will be hereafter referred to as the petitioner has undertaken the construction of a five star hotel on premises No. 28, Sankey Road, Bangalore City. 3. On 30th August, 1983, the petitioner made an application before the Commercial Tax Officer, X Additional Circle, Bangalore ('CTO') under the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956 ('the CST Act') and the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 ('the Rules') for registration in dealing with the articles detailed in an annexure to that application. On an examination of the same, the CTO issued a registration certificate on 23rd January, 1984, to b...

Employment Officer Vs. Sevarinathan

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR317

ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by the judgment-debtor against the order dated 18-10-1979 passed by the Civil Judge, Mandya, in Execution Case.27 of 1979.2. The decree-holder obtained a succession certificate in respect of Rs.4,200/-due asdeath-cum-retirement gratuity and Rs. 202/- towards arrears of salary due to the deceased Miss Arokiamary, sister of the decree-holder. As the said amount was not paid to the decree-holder, he sued out execution.3. The judgment-debtor resisted that the succession certificate did not amount to a decree or an order, which could be executed under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.4. The lower Court held that it amounts to an order, which was executable under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and rejected the contentions of thejudgment-debtor. Hence, the revision.5. The word 'decree' has been defined in Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as --''decree' means the format expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the...

State of Karnataka Vs. Venkatesh and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR2272; 1985(2)KarLJ377

ORDER1. This Revision under sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal P.C. by the State of Karnataka challenging the correctness and the legality of the judgment and order dated 11th June 1982 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gulbarga in Crime No. 104 of 1981 setting aside the order of confiscation dated 29-9-1981, confiscating 115 bags of sugar seized from the possession of respondents under S. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the 'Act'). 2. The matter arises in this way. On 25-3-1981 at about 8.30 p.m., the Probationary Dy. S.P. along with his staff conducted a raid of Laxmi Narasimha and Company, Toddy Depot and found 115 bags of sugar stored for the manufacture of artificial toddy in contravention of clause 3(1) of the Karnataka Sugar Dealers Licensing Order 1962 (for short the order) and seized the same under panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses. Thereafter, a case was registered against the respondents in Crime No. 60 of 1981 for offence under S. 37 of the Ka...

P. Govinda Setty Son and Co. and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Comme ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1986]61STC64(Kar)

ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. In these four writ petitions, the two petitioners who are registered dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act have challenged the notices dated 7th June, 1980, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore Division, Bangalore, proposing to revise the orders of assessment for the periods from 1st April, 1970, to 31st March, 1971, and 1st April, 1971, to 31st March 1972, in relation to the two petitioners for the common periods as per annexures E and F. 2. The Deputy Commissioner on a perusal of the revision orders dated 10th June, 1975, in the two assessees' cases, passed by his predecessor, has sough to revise the same and to bring their purchase turnover in paddy to tax under section 6 of the Act, for the two periods in question. 3. By order dated 10th June, 1975, the Deputy Commissioner had set aside and cancelled the orders passed by the assessing authority in so far as the levy of tax on purchase turnover in paddy was concerned, for...