Karnataka Court October 1985 Judgments
Abdul Khadar Vs. Land Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3923
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a declarant, having filed his declaration under Section 66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act; he hold 140 acres and 37 guntas of lands in villages Dandothi and Mallkhad, Chittapur Taluk, Gulbarga District. His family, as per his declaration, consists of himself, his wife, two major sons and four unmarried daughters. The lands are 'D' class lands and the petitioner states that 'the lands declared by him are the joint family lands, which arc shared by himself, his wife, two major sons and four unmarried daughters'. The Land Tribunal has held that the, petitioner is entitled to hold only 108 acres and hence there is a surplus of 32 acres and 37 guntas; the Tribunal has considered one son as major. The ceiling limit for an individual or family being 10 units i.e. , 54 acres, it is calculated for two families. Declarant, his wife, one minor son and 4 unmarried daughters, constituting one family and a major son as second family. Thus, calculating, i...
Tag this Judgment!Nandi Bevoor Virupakshappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4025
ORDERKudoor, J.1. The matter though listed for admission is heard finally by consent of the Learned advocates appearing for both parties.2. This Revision Petition, one under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Code') is by the respondents before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hospet in Proceedings No. MAG. 36/8586, a proceedings initiated upon a complaint filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Hirehadagali to take action under Section 107 of the Code. They have assailed in this Revision Petition an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 111 of the Code.3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended inter alia that the order in question is defective inasmuch as the Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has exceeded his jurisdiction in calling upon the petitioner to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for maintaining law and order in addition to keeping the peace as required under Section 107 of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Khoday Industries Limited Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-1985
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC135; 1986(23)ELT337(Kar)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of carbon paper. In the writ petitions, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the Assistant Collector Annexure 'D' and that of the Appellate Collector Annexure 'G' and the notice of demand, Annexure 'H'. The two writ petitions relate to the demand made to pay difference of excise duty for the period 16-10-1978 to 18-4-1979 and the demand made for the further period 16-4-1979 to 22-2-1980 as per Annexure 'H'. 2. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner Company on 16-4-1979 proposing to demand difference of duty on the carbon paper cleared during 16-10-1978 to 15-4-1979. This item had been subjected to duty under item 68 as per the classification list approved by the proper Officer. What was proposed to be done under the show cause notice was to demand difference of duty payable under item 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff which was amended with e...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Monawwa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-1985
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas825(Kar); ILR1985KAR4174
1. This is an appeal by respondent No. 3, the insurance company, against the judgment and award dated September 10, 1984, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. II, Bijapur, in M.V.C. No. 32 of 1983, awarding compensation of Rs. 31, 600 on account of the death of Ningappa Waddar. 2. The deceased , Ningappa Waddar, and another boarded the lorry in question at Solapur cross near Horti village on January 29, 1983, at about 2.24 p.m. after loading their grinding stones. The said lorry was being driven in a rash or negligent manner. As a result of it, the said, Ningappa sustained fatal injuries and died. Hence, the claim petition by the legal representatives of the deceased, Ningappa. 3. It was resisted by the other side. 4. The trial court, on appreciation of the evidence, awarded Rs. 31,600 to the legal representatives of the deceased, Ningappa, as compensation. Hence, this appeal by the insurance company. 5. That the accident took place on account of the rash or negligent driv...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Sarawagi and Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. the Government of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-1985
Reported in: [1986]62STC218(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by Rajasekhara Murthy, J., this case has been posted before us for disposal.2. Among others the petitioner is an assessee on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Bellary (C.T.O.), under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the Act). For the assessment years 1967-68 to 1972-73, the C.T.O. completed the assessments against the petitioner under the Act, issued consequent demand notices, from time to time, calling upon it to pay the taxes specified therein. For various reasons that are not necessary to notice the petitioner did not pay the taxes due from it on or before the dates specified in the respective demand notices and then ultimately on 2nd April, 1977, it paid all the taxes due for the aforesaid years. For such delay in payment of taxes, the C.T.O. called upon the petitioner to remit penalty or interest due to the State under section 13(2)(ii) of the Act. 3. On 2nd April, 1977, the petitioner made an application (exhibit C) befo...
Tag this Judgment!Sarawagi and Co. Vs. Government of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1110
ORDERPuttaswamy. J.1. On a reference made by Rajasekhara Murthy, J : this case has been posted before us for disposal.2. Among others the petitioner is an assessee on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Bellary (C.T.O.), under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. 1957 (the Act). For the assessment years 1967-68 to 1972-73 the C.T.O., completed the assessments against the petitioner undo the Act, issued consequent demand notices, from time to time, calling upon it to pay the taxes specified therein. For various reasons that are not necessary to notice the petitioner did not pay the taxes due from it on or before the dates specified in the respective demand notices and then ultimately on 2nd April, 1977, it paid all the taxes due for the aforesaid years. For such delay in payment of taxes, the C.T.O., called upon the petitioner to remit penalty or interest due to the State under Section 13(2)(ii) of the Act.3. On 2nd April, 1977, the petitioner made an application (Exhibit-C) befor...
Tag this Judgment!Puttachannaiah Vs. Shivalingaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4176
Kulkarni, J.1. This is an appeal by the respondent-1 against the order dated 22-10-1977 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tumkur Sub-Division, Tumkur in Case No. WCC 4/73-74 awarding a compensation of Rs, 5000/-.2. The facts that emerge from the material on record show that the deceased was working in the well which the respondent-1 was getting dug. According to Shri Bhat, Learned Counsel for the appellant, Respondent-1 hadentrusted the work of digging the well to the contractor Respondent-4 and that he had engaged the deceased for the purpose of working in the well. According to him, he comes within the exception created by Section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act reads thus :'2(n). 'Workman' means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business) who is....'In order to come w...
Tag this Judgment!United Breweries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: [1986]162ITR527(KAR); [1986]162ITR527(Karn)
Mahendra, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), at the instance of the assessee has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the legal expenses of Rs. 11,500 was not liable to be allowed against the dividend income of the assessee ?' 2. In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary to notice, in the first instance, the facts as found by the Tribunal. 3. Messrs. United Breweries Limited, 32, Grant Road, Bangalore, a public limited company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of beer is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). For the assessment year 1971-72 relevant to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1971, the assessee in its return claimed an allowance of Rs. 11,500, being the legal expenses incurred in connection with a case filed by it again...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory Industrial Estate Vs. Superintendent of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC25; 1986(6)LC432(Karnataka); 1986(23)ELT313(Kar)
ORDER1. The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the show-cause notice issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Hubli, calling upon the petitioner to file his objections to the proposed levy of Central Excise on the total value of the clearances made from his two factories at Goa and Hubli during the year 1976-77. 2. This Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed on the sole ground that the petitioner has adequate remedy under the Act. However, sine Rule Nisi is issued in the case, the matter is disposed of on its merits and the following order is made. The petitioner is a registered partnership concern, owning two factories, one at Goa and another at Hubli, for the manufacture of R.C.C. cement pipes and other allied products. The production in the Hubli factory started in the year 1960 and in Goa unit in the year 1971. In the Hubli factory the petitioner had employed more that 49 workers, and in Goa, it was less than 49 during the relevant period. 3. The Government of ...
Tag this Judgment!Prema Vs. Management Hulkah Group Service Cooperative Society Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR163]; ILR1986KAR1273; (1986)IILLJ54Kant
ORDER1. The question for consideration in these Writ Petitions is whether on the death of a workman either during the stage of conciliation proceedings or at the stage of the proceedings before the State Government under S. 10 read with S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) or during the pendency of a dispute on the file of the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, would put an end to the Industrial dispute between the parties. That is to say, whether the proceedings either before the Conciliation Officer or before the State Government or before the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunla, as the case may be abate merely by reason of the death of one of the parties to the dispute if he is a workman. This question is of considerable significance to the claims of the workmen pending before the authorities under the Act at various stages. The Kerala High Court in a decision rendered in a proceeding under S. 33C(2) of the Act has held that...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »