Karnataka Court April 1985 Judgments
M. P. Jayaraj Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-25-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1460
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Government Order dated 12-11-1984 bearing No. HD 87 PRR 84, produced as Annexure-E. He has also sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to release him prematurely.2. 1) The petitioner along with four other accused was convicted on 18-8-1978 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 307 read with Section 149; and Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1977 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months, one year, 5 years and one year respectively on each of the aforesaid counts. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. 2) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of convictions and sentences, the petitioner al...
Tag this Judgment!Khalimulla Khan Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-22-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1641
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In all these petitions, some of the petitioners are dealers and others are millers and one of them is a grower i.e., the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 19593 of 1984.2. In all these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of Sub-clauses (f) & (i) of Clause 2; Sub-clauses (i), 3 and 4 of Clause 3; Sub-clauses (1) (b), (2) and (3) of Clause 4 ; and Clauses 6, 8, 9 and 10 and also Form 'D' of the Karnataka Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Levy Order,') on the ground that they impose unreasonable restriction on the right to trade and as such, the same are violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.3. One of the petitioners, viz., the petitioner in W.P. 19593/84 is a grower. He is a resident of Coorg district. According to his case, neither the paddy grown by him nor the rice obtained therefrom has market in the State of Karnataka, therefore, the petitioner has to n...
Tag this Judgment!D.A. Graham and Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Kar)133; ILR1985KAR2143; [1985]154ITR879(KAR); [1985]154ITR879(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases are interconnected, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. I.T.R.C. No. 12 of 1975 : 2. In this reference made under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act of 1961 (Central Act No. 43 of 1961) ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ('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 that circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount that of capital gains and dividends received by the assessee in U.K. should be converted into rupees on the basis of the exchange rate prevailing as on the date when each capital gain arose and each dividend was received and not on the basis of the exchange rate prevailing as on the last day of the accounting year for the assessment year 1968-69 ?' Writ Petition No. 2731 of 1979 : 3. In this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution, the...
Tag this Judgment!National Products Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-1985
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Kar)57; [1987]163ITR632(KAR); [1987]163ITR632(Karn); [1986]26TAXMAN755(Kar)
Puttaswamy, J.1. In this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Central Act No. 43 of 1961), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('Tribunal'), at the instance of the assessee, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the short term capital gains of Rs. 10,675 was assessable on the sale of a part of the property (2) Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that section 51 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ?' 2. In order to appreciate the questions referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts as found by the Tribunal which are not in dispute also. 3. On October 18, 1983, the assessee purchased immovable property bearing No. 8, Bore Bank Road, Benson Town, Bangalore City, measuring an extent of 43,700 sq.ft. in a court auction fo...
Tag this Judgment!i.T.C. Limited Vs. Government of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-1985
Reported in: [1985(51)FLR1]; 1985(2)KarLJ74; (1985)IILLJ430Kant
ORDER1. The points that arise for consideration in these appeals are (1) When the proceedings under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are pending before the Tribunal is the Government competent to refer under S. 10(1) of the Act the same matter for adjudication to an authority specified therein. (2) Even if the Government has the competence to make a reference under S. 10(1) of the Act is the decision to refer vitiated because of non-consideration of the pendancy of the proceedings under S. 33(2)(b) of the Act, before the Tribunal. 2. The facts giving rise in these appeals are these : The appellant Company served charge sheets for certain misconduct alleged against each of the workmen, held an enquiry and as a result of the enquiry passed orders dismissing about 59 of its workmen. Because some disputes between the Company and its workmen were pending before the Labour Court the Company applied for approval under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinaf...
Tag this Judgment!Sobhana Kumar S. and ors. Vs. the Mangalore University and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Kant223
ORDER1. In these writ petition, in which the petitioners have questioned the legality of the decisions of the Bangalore and Mangalore Universities refusing to approve their admission to the 1 year of the three years' Law Degree course, the following common question of law arises for consideration:''Whether the conditions of eligibility for admission to the law degree course fixed by any of the Universities constituted under the Karnataka State Universities Act ('the Act' for short) is unenforceable if it is higher than the minimum conditions of eligibility for admission to the Law Degree course prescribed by The Bar Council of India under S. 49 of the Advocates Act?'2. The facts of the -case of each of the petitions in brief are as follows: (i) Re. W. P. No. 68/1985: The petitioner in this writ petition passed the B. A. Degree examination of the Kerala University in the year 1981 securing 39.85% marks. In June 1984, he got himself admitted to the Udupi Law College, Udupi, which is a pr...
Tag this Judgment!G.B. Ramesh and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Kant237; ILR1985KAR2096; 1985(2)KarLJ241
Mahendra, J.1. These cases have been referred by learned single Judge and are posted before us for hearing. 2. The petitioner in W. P. 831/76 was the owner of a motor vehicle MYS 7606, registered as a stage carriage on 14-1-1976. He applied for a stage carriage permit for the route Davanagere to B. R. Project before the appropriate authority. He was not operating a stage carriage as timings had not been assigned. He was however operating the vehicle on special permit obtained under Sec. 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act for the period 14-1-1976 and 29-1-1976.3. The first petitioner who is the son of the second petitioner in W. P. 913/76 was the owner of a motor vehicle MYG 7282 registered as a stage carriage on 5-11-1975. He had not obtained a stage carriage permit but was operating the vehicle on special permits obtained under Sec. 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act for the period 19-1-1976 and 31-1-1976.4. On the promulgation of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance on ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Annegowda by Lrs.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2121; 1985(2)KarLJ67
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, J.1.The State has filed the Civil Petition to review the Judgment in R.F.A. No. 23 of 1973. The appeal was disposed of by this Court on October 25, 1979. On March 25, 1981, the review petition was filed. There is thus a delay of 547 days in filing the review petition. The first question herein is whether the State has shown sufficient cause to condone the delay.2. There are five affidavits filed by three officers of the State giving the explanation for the said delay. There are three counter affidavits from the respondents.For a proper appreciation of the cause shown by the State for condonation of the delay, it will be necessary to have regard to the matter involved in the appeal. A land bearing survey No. 88 of Komarahalli village, Sakleshpur Taluk, measures 339 acres 19 guntas with valuable trees worthCrores ofrupees. It originally belonged to an Englishman called Brooks Market. He left that property with his trustees and left the country never to return. The...
Tag this Judgment!Amareshappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Kant34
Malimath, C.J.1. The authorities issued a notification under S. 15(l) of the Karnataka Irrigation Act, 1965 dt. the 17th of August, 1978 proposing to acquire a portion of the petitioner's land in survey No. 10 of San Hosur Village of Manvi Taluk for the purpose of laying the channel to reach water to the land of the third respondent. This was followed by a notification under S. 15(2) of the said Act dt. 17-10-1978. The petitioner filed his objections, which were considered by the Assistant Commissioner after giving a hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter an order came to be made under S. 16(l) of the Karnataka Irrigation Act on the 2nd of Jan., 1979 Exhibit 'C' proposing to acquire the notified portion of the land. It is the acquisition in so far it pertains to land of the petitioner that is challenged in the Writ Petition.2. When the matter came up for consideration, the learned single Judge felt that it is difficult for him to follow the Division Bench ruling of this Court reported i...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Motors and anr. Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2675; [1985]59STC337(Kar)
Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Sri Srinivasa Iyengar and Sri Rama Jois, JJ., has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the Full Bench : 'Whether the Division Bench decision of this Court in Webbs Sales and Service (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore [1969] 24 STC 84 has been impliedly overruled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. State of Kerala : (1970)3SCC253 and D. C. Johar & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Ernakulam [1971] 27 STC 120 (SC) ?' 2. In order to appreciate the question referred, it is necessary to notice the facts that are not in dispute, in the first instance. M/s. United Trading Corporation and Workshop Private Ltd., a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, and M/s. Arvind Motors, Mangalore, a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of selling motor-cars and trucks, such as Ambassador Cars, Tata Mercedes Benz trucks...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »