Karnataka Court October 1985 Judgments

Phipson and Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR2465

ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. Petitioner in this case is a wholesale dealer in liquor. Petitioner purchases bottled beer from its manufacturers at Bangalore and other places for purposes of distribution to retailers. At the time of sale to the retailers a deposit known as 'empty bottle deposit' at 70 p. per bottle is taken by the petitioner. This deposit, according to the petitioner is only meant for repaying the said sums to the retailers on the return of the bottles. For the assessment year 1976-77 a sum of Rs. 5,17,713-75 p. representing such deposits was Claimed as a deduction from the total turnover. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment -1) Bangalore, allowed the said claim and consequently, deducted it from the total turnover.2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, in exercise of power conferred under Section 21(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, issued a notice, as per Annexure-B, to the petitioner to show cause why the exemption allowed ...

Ningappa Shivappa Gowri and ors. Vs. Smt. Kalavathi and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1986CriLJ1719

ORDERN.R. Kudoor, J.1. This Criminal Petition one under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arose out of a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent Smt. Kalavathi against the petitioner (the accused) for offences punishable under Sections 494 and 109, I.P.C. read with Section 3.4, I.P.C.2. The matter arises in this way.On a complaint filed by the complainant in the Court of the JMFC, Saundatti, in Cr. Case No. 12/1982, the Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and of four witnesses produced by her passed an order D/- 9-11-1982 directing issue of process against all the accused. The accused carried the matter to the Court of Session at Belgaum in Criminal Revision No. 10/1983 which came to be heard and dismissed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, as per his order D/- 30th July, 1983. Being aggrieved by this order the accused have filed this petition challenging the validity and legality of the order passed by the Courts below.3. Sri...

Management of City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Employees Cooper ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR2372; (1987)ILLJ22Kant

ORDERBopanna, J.1. This Writ Petition was posted for hearing on 27.9.1985 and after arguments were heard, the matter was adjourned to to-day for further hearing since it was submitted by the Learned Counsel for the first respondent-workmen, who appeared for him as amicus curiae, that despite the order made by this Court requesting him to appear for the workman he (the workman) had expressed his disinclination to accept him as his Counsel and wanted to argue the matter himself. Accordingly, the workman's name was shown in the cause-list and though his name was called out thrice, he is absent. 2. The petitioner is the Management of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Employee's Co-operative Society Limited, which is a society consisting of employees of the Bangalore City Municipal Corporation and it has challenged the award of the Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, directing reinstatement of the first respondent-workmen with the 50 per cent backwages, continuity of service and o...

M.N. Jadhav (Decd. by Legal Representatives) Vs. Fourth Income-tax Off ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Kar)177; [1986]161ITR275(KAR); [1986]161ITR275(Karn); [1986]24TAXMAN686(Kar)

Puttaswamy, J.1. M. N. Jadhav of Hubli, the original petitioner before me, who is now dead and is represented by his legal representatives, was an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Central Act No. 43 of 1961) ('the Act'). For the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Hubli exercising powers conferred on him by section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by separate but identical orders made on March 14, 1972, levied a sum of Rs. 6,000 as penalty for each year on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said orders made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner filed appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ('the Tribunal'), under section 250 of the Act which by its order dated March 7, 1973, allowed them and cancelled the penalties levied against him. But, on references made at the instance of the Revenue on that question, this court by its order made on April 21, 1978, in I.T.R.C. Nos. 70 and 71 of 1974 answered t...

E.M. Chokkalingam Chettiar Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Kar)120; [1986]161ITR216(KAR); [1986]161ITR216(Karn)

K.S. Puttaswamy, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated August 19, 1981, of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Madikeri ('the AITO'), and the consequent notice of demand (annexure-C) issued on August 21, 1981. 2. For the assessment year 1975-76, relevant to the accounting period ending on March 31, 1975, the petitioner filed his return under the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 22 of 1957) ('the Act'), before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer who on an examination of the same completed the assessment under the Act on May 28, 1976. In the purported exercise of his powers under Section 37 of the Act, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer issued a show-cause notice on February 1, 1978, proposing to rectify his previous assessment order on diverse grounds which way objected to by the petitioner. Unfortunately, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, without realising that there was a period of lim...

B.N. Sathyanarayana Rao Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR790

ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have sought for a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to allot same sites belonging to the petitioners and collect betterment fee or any other charges that they may have to pay as per Rules.2. The case of the petitioners is that each of them owned a revenue site in Sy. Nos, 10/2, 10/3, 12/1, 12/2, 13/2 and 16/1 of Gangenahalli village, Bangalore North Taluk, Division No. 46 ; that the land comprised in the aforesaid survey numbers were acquired for the purpose of formation of Matadahalli layout by the Bangalore Development Authority ; that at the time of acquisition the Chairman of the B.D.A issued an Notification bearing No. BDA/APM/TA 194/76-77 dated 14-7-1976 representing to the revenue site owners whose sites were acquired for the purpose of the scheme by the B.D.A. that they revenue site owners-would be allotted sites equal to the revenue site acquired as ...

Srinivasa Baliga Vs. Gopalakrishna Pai

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR943

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is a tenant's revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. directed against the order of the Learned District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, dated 13th December. 1982. The order is made in CRP No. 93/1980 on the file of the Learned District Judge. That revision before him was also filed by the tenant-petitioner against the order of the Munsiff. Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, made in HRC. No. 280/1973 on his file. The question involved in this revision has been pending for long in the Courts, there is no doubt. As on this date, it is over 12 years. It is equally unnecessary for me to state that both the Courts below have held against the tenant. Therefore, he is in this Court under Section 115 of the C.P.C.2. The facts leading to this petition may be briefly stated as follows : The petitioner-tenant by virtue of a lease said to have been entered between himself and his landlord, the respondents, came to possess 1050 sq. ft. adjacent to Roopavani Talkie...

Chokkalingam Chettiar Vs. Agricultural I.T.O.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR1126

ORDERPuttaswamy. J.1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19-8-1981 of the Agricultural Income-Tax Officer, Madikere ('AITO') and the consequent notice of demand (Annexure-C) issued on 21-8-1981.2. For the assessment year 1975-76, relevant to the accounting period ending on 31-3-1975, the petitioner filed his return under the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act. 1957 (Karnataka Act 22 of 1957) ('the Act') before the AITO who on an examination of the same completed the assessment under the Act on 28-5-1976. In the purported exercise of his powers under Section 37 of the Act, the AITO issued a show cause notice on 1-2-1978 proposing to rectify his previous assessment order on diverse grounds, which was objected to by the petitioner. Unfortunately the AITO without realising that there was a period of limitation stipulated in Sub-section (7) of Section 37 of the Act, made his order as late as on 19-8-1981, in which he foun...

Shashikala Vs. Chairman, Selection Committee

Court: Karnataka

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner is the daughter of an alleged political sufferer. She applied for a seat in the Government Medical Colleges or seats available to Government in private Medical Colleges, in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission) Rules, 1983. The Rules cams into force in the academic year 1983 - 84. The petitioner sought a seat in the category reserved for political sufferers under Rule 4 thereof. A political sufferer for the purpose of that rule is defined to include a person who in the course of the freedom struggle has suffered imprisonment for nor less than three months. Petitioner's father suffered imprisonment for 2 months and 9 days as admitted by her. He was convicted, for political offence and the Magistrate punished him with imprisonment of 3 months and a fine of Rs. 300/- on failure to pay the fine to suffer further three months imprisonment. That sentence was reduced by the Distric...

Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. and ors. Vs. Assistant Collec ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1986(8)ECC6; 1985(5)LC2554(Karnataka); 1986(23)ELT48(Kar)

K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.) these cases were posted before a Division Bench for disposal. 2. As the questions of law that arise for determination in these cases are either common or interconnected, we propose to dispose them by a common order. 3. M/s. Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Limited, a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act of 1956, which is the petitioner in W.P. 3548 of 1978 is engaged in the manufacture of chemicals and fertilisers, at its factory situated near Mangalore. M/s. Ballapir Industries Limited, also a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, which is the petitioner in W.P. No. 4766 of 1981, is engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda, liquid chlorine, Hydrochloric Acid and Sodium Tripoly-phosphate at its factory situated near Karwar. The goods manufactured by the petitioners are exigible to payment of excise duty under and in accordance with the Central Excises and Salt Act ...