Karnataka Court September 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.
Rukmini P. Kalburgi Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1984
Reported in: ILR1986KAR154
ORDERBopanna, J. 1. These Petitions are disposed of by a common order since the facts are common in all these Petitions and the issues that arise for consideration are also common.2. The petitioners claiming to be the owners of certain land in survey number 57/4 (renumbered as 57/109) situate at Shabanur Village, Davangere Taluk, have challenged the validity of the acquisition proceedings initiated by the authorities under the provisions of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This land, it is not in dispute, forms a portion of survey number 57/4 and at the time of acquisition by the authorities under the Act, it had been converted into non-agricultural land and the petitioners had also obtained permission of the City Municipal Council, Davangere, as also from the Director of Town Planning for setting up a residential layout. After setting up the said layout the land was divided into 50 sites and it is the case of the petitioners that sites n...
Ramagouda Rudregouda Patil Vs. Lagmavva
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR462
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by the defendants against the order dated 19-1-1979, passed by the Principal District Judge, Belgaum, in Execution Appeal No. 4 of 1977, reversing the order dated 11-4-1977, passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Chikodi , in D.F. Original Suit No 134-of 1972, dismissing the decree final proceedings.2. The parties have been referred to in the course of this order with reference to their position in Original Suit No. 4 of 1924.3. The plaintiffs in, Original Suit No, 4 of 1924 are the decree-holders. The defendants in the said suit are the judgment-debtors.4. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 4 of 1924 in the Court of the Sub-ordinate Judge First Class, Belgaum, for partition and possession of their share in the two suit schedule agricultural lands and a house. The said suit resulted in a compromise, as per the compromise decree dated 24-3-1926. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed execution Petition No. 368 of 1926 on the file of the Sub-ordinat...
Best and Crompton Engineering Ltd. Vs. Joint Secretary, Govt. of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1984
Reported in: 1995(76)ELT571(Kar)
ORDER1. As the parties in these cases are common and the questions that arise for determination are either common or inter-connected, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. I therefore propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. Among others, the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of power driven pumps called 'Monoblock Pumps' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Pumps') at its factory situated at Yediyur of Bangalore City and on the pumps so manufactured, it filed the requisite price and classification lists before the competent Officer under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming that they were dutiable under Tariff Item Entry No. 30-A of the Act who approved the same. On that basis, the petitioner paid the duties payable thereon under the Act for the period from 18-4-1972 to 31-7-1972. 3. But, on 3-8-1982, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Rule 10-A(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Rules, 19...
Vasudev Pandurang Malawade Vs. Basappa Hanumanthappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR546
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a Revision by the plaintiff against the order dated 1-9-1979 passed by the Prl. Munsiff, Hubli, in O.S. 22 of 1976, calling upon the plaintiff to pay duty and penalty of Rs. 720-60 on the two documents.2. The defendant purported to mortgage the suit house for Rs. 500/-under a document dated 12-6-1975, which reads as :By a second document, the defendant purports to execute a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 1000/-, which reads as .The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance calling upon the defendant to execute the two mortgage deeds or in the alternative for refund of Rs. 1500/-. An objection was raised that the said two deeds were mortgage deeds and hence the plaintiff should pay the duty and penalty on the footing, that both of them were mortgage deeds. The plaintiff, on the other hand, urged that the deeds were only agreements to execute mortgage deeds. He submitted that the penalty and duty should be collected on the footing that the...
Bapuji Educational Association Vs. State Overruled
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Kant119
ORDER1. In this batch of Writ Petitions, in which the petitioners, who are the managements as also individuals, who are members of the management of various private engineering colleges in the State, have questioned the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 ('the Act' for short) and orders issued thereunder, the following main question arises forconsideration :Where the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under Arts. 19(1)(c), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution includes the right to establish and administer the Educational Institutions of their choice? and if.so, whether the Act which prohibits the collection of Capitation Fee for admission to Education Institutions except to the extent permitted by an order made under the proviso to S. 3 of the Act is violative all or any of those Articles and, Arts. 14, 31A and 300A of the Constitution?Facts of the Case :Originally the Writ Petitions were presented quest...
Binny Limited Vs. the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-1984
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC16
ORDERK.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. For the period from 1st January, 1970 to 31st December, 1970 the petitioner, a reputed manufacturer of textiles, manufactured a textile item called 'X-40, deducts'. On that manufactured article, the petitioner claimed that it was liable to pay excise duty under tariff item No. 19I(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and accordingly paid the necessary excise duty thereon. On 26th June, 1971 the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Superintendent) issued a show cause notice (exhibit B) to the petitioner inter aliaclaiming that the Article 'X-40, deducts' should have been levied with excise duty under tariff item No. 19I(1) of the Act and the difference of excise duty amounting to Rs. 97.800,39 should be paid for the aforesaid period. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner filed its objections inter alia contending that the levy already made and collected wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›