Karnataka Court February 1984 Judgments

G.M. Patel Vs. the State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1987]65STC56(Kar)

ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. This revision arises out of the order dated May 29, 1982, of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, made under section 25-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (the 'Act'), 1957. 2. The matter arises in this way : The petitioner is a partnership firm and is a dealer registered under the 'Act'. For the assessment period 1977-78, the petitioner purchased certain quantity of cotton (kapas). That was ginned and sold as bales of cotton. The cotton seeds separated therefrom were also sold. The total purchase made by the petitioner was 8480.24 quintals. Upon ginning, the cotton yielded was 2884.13 quintals and the quantity of cotton seeds obtained was 5434.30 quintals. There was thus a shortage of 161.81 quintals which was nearly two per cent of the total purchase turnover. The petitioner submitted gross turnover of Rs. 1,43,00,000, exempted turnover of Rs. 1,30,30,000 and taxable turnover of Rs. 12,70,000. The taxable turnover consisted of the sales of cott...

Seena Seregara Vs. Land Tribunal

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR805

ORDERMalimath, C.J.1. This appeal is against the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 7-11-1978 in Writ Petition No. 8338/76. The material facts may briefly be stated as follows :-2. Land bearing Sy. No. 23 situate in Kone Hosur Village in Shimoga Taluk was granted to Respondent 2 Devappa under Rule 43(D)(2) of the Mysore Land Revenue Rules as amended in the year 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), by the Special Deputy Commissioner of Shimoga District, on the ground that he is a displaced person. The total extent of the land granted measures 12 acres out of which 8 acres is wet land and 4 acres is dry land. The grant made in favour of Devappa is subject to the statutoryconditions prescribed by Rule 43(G) of the Rules. In pursuance of the order made by the Special Deputy Commissioner granting the land, a samurai chit was issued in favour of Devappa on 22-6-1963. It is not disputed that in pursuance of the order of grant and the samurai chit, Devappa was actually put in poss...

A.S. Parameshwaraiah Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1985Kant161

ORDER1. At the stage of preliminary hearing, the Government Pleader - Sri S. Udayashankar, was directed to take notice on behalf of the respondents and obtain the records and instructions. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader has obtained the records and instructions.2. In this Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the orders dated 18-1-84 and 19-1-84 (Annexures C & D respectively) passed by the 2nd respondent.3. On 15-1-1984, a lorry bearing Registration No. MYH 6109 was intercepted by the Police of Channarayapatna Police Station near Thirumala Bar Cross, on B.M. Road. It was found that the lorry was carrying 55 bags of rice without a release certificate. The Sub Inspector of Police, Channarayapatna, seized the commodity and the vehicle and produced the same before the 2nd respondent. On 16-1-84, the petitioner filed a petition before the 2nd respondent stating that he was an agriculturist, and the rice in question belonge...

Economic Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. P.S. Krishnoji Rao and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1984]56CompCas265(Kar)

M.S. Nesargi, J. 1. Respondents in C.R.Ps. Nos. 780 and 781 of 1982 are represented by Sri. M. Dasappa, learned advocate. The remaining respondents are absent. 2. Common question of law arises in these C.R.Ps. and, therefore, a common order is being passed. 3. The petitioners, Chit Fund Corporation, obtained decrees against respondent No. 1 in these matters towards the recovery of installments regarding a chit. They executed the decrees in the Court of Munsiff, Mandya. The concerned respondents raised a contention that they are 'debtors' under the Karnataka Debt Relief Act. The Act that was in force at the time when the contention was raised in the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act'). During the course of the enquiry, the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980, came into force. This Act, in the course of the order, will be referred to as the new Act. The petitioners contended that in view of the fact that the decretal amount in each one of the execution ...

Economic Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Mandya and anr. Vs. P.S. Krishnoji Rao ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1986Kant211; [1985]58CompCas838(Kar)

ORDER1. Respondents in C. R. Ps. Nos. 780 and 781 of 1982 are represented by Sri. M. Dasappa, learned Advocate. The remaining respondents are absent. 2. Common question of law arises in these C. R. Ps. and therefore a common order is being passed.3. The petitioner Chit Fund Corporation obtained decrees against respondent I in these matters towards the recovery of installments regarding a chit. They executed the decrees in the Court of Munsiff, Mandya. The concerned respondents raised a contention that they are debtors under Karnataka Debt Relief Act. The Act that was in force at the time when the contention was raised is the Karnataka Debt Relief Act 1976 (herein after referred to as the Old Act). During the course of the enquiry the Karnataka Debt Relief Act of 1980 came into force. This Act, in the course of the order, will be referred to as the New Act. The petitioners contended that in view of the fact that the decretal amount in each one of the execution cases is not a debt in the...

The State of Karnataka Vs. Babu

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1984]56STC79(Kar)

ORDER1. These revisions arise out of the orders passed by the JMFC., Harihar, in C.C. Nos. 302/81, 305/81, 369/81, 312/81, 311/81, 310/81, 306/81, 304/81, 303/81, and 307/81, respectively whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the respondents, who were accused in different cases, for contravention of S. 12B(1) punishable under S. 29(1)(g), Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and released them on admonition in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of S. 360, Criminal P.C. 2. Since the question of law raised is common to all of them, they are heard simultaneously and are disposed of by the common order. 3. The learned Magistrate has proceeded to convict the accused on their pleading guilty and having regard to the fact that they were all first offenders has thought it proper to release them on admonition. 4. Mr. T. J. Chouta, learned High Court Government pleader appearing for the State, submitted that the provisions of sub-section (3) of...

Javaraya Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1984Kant231

ORDER1. In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) as amended by Karnataka Act 17 of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Government of Karnataka issued preliminary notification No. RD 327 AQY 73 dt. 9-4-1973 (Exhibit-A) proposing to acquire an extent of 4 acres of land in S. Nos. 59 and 63 of Chandahalli village, B. G. Pura Hobli Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District, owned by the petitioner for purpose of village extension. In the said notification, Government appointed the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya Sub Division, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as the A- C.) to perform the functions of the Deputy Commissioner under the Act.2. On service of notice of the said acquisition, the petitioner filed his detailed objections before the A. C. and urged for dropping the acquisition; proceedings on the various grounds urged in his objection statement. At the hearing afforded by the A. C., the petitioner reiterated his objections, an...

The State of Karnataka Vs. Babu and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERPatil, J.1. These revisions arise out of the orders passed by the J.M.F.C., Harihar in C.C. Nos. 302 of 1981, 305 of 1981, 369 of 1981, 312 of 1981, 311 of 1981, 310 of 1981, 306 of 1981, 304 of 1981, 303 of 1981 and 307 of 1981, respectively whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the respondents, who were accused in different cases, for contravention of section 12B(1) punishable under section 29(1)(g) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and released them on admonition in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Since the question of law raised is common to all of them, they are heard simultaneously and are disposed of by the common order. 3. The learned Magistrate has proceeded to convict the accused on their pleading guilty and having regard to the fact that they were all first offenders has thought it proper to release them on admonition. 4. Mr. T. J. Chouta, the learned H...

K.M.S. Rice and Flour Mills Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1994KAR1440

ORDERHanumanthappa, J.1. The Point for Consideration in these Writ Petitions is whether the dealer is required to obtain both the Release Certificate and Transfer Certificate as required under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and liable to surrender levy rice under the Karnataka Rice Procurement (Levy) (Amendment) Order, 1993, amended from time to time including the 1993 Amendment Order.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners cont d that earlier in the Decision of this Court in the case of SUBHANI RICE MILL, BASAVAPATNA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS, 1988(1) KLJ 147. wherein it is held that the dealer had to obtain both the Release Certificate and Transfer Certificate. Subsequent to the Decision in the case of Subhani Rice Mill, the Government has made amendment to Clause 6 of the Levy Order whereby the Sub-clause 2(a) and (b) and 3 are deleted. According to the petitioners, Sub-clause 2(a) and (b) are deleted long ago and Sub-clause 3 is now deleted. As such, the respo...

Nilgiri Plantations Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1986]160ITR200(KAR); [1986]160ITR200(Karn)

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Karnataka, Bangalore, under section 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957. 2. The Commissioner by the said order has found fault with the assessment order in relation to the following three deductions allowed (1) consultant's fee Rs. 24,000, (2) general charges Rs. 7,418.44 and (3) auditor's fee Rs. 1,800. 3. So far as the first item is concerned, the Commissioner was of the opinion that consultancy agreement by itself is not decisive to claim such exemption and the particulars of the advice received by the assessee from the consultants are also necessary and, in the absence of any such particulars, it is not possible to judge whether or not it is allowable under section 5(1)(k) of the Act. We entirely agree with this reasoning that in the absence of the nature of the advice given by the consultants, it is not possible to find out whether the payment ma...