Karnataka Court January 1986 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.
B. Babu and Co. Vs. Sixth Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1986
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Kar)33; [1987]163ITR654(KAR); [1987]163ITR654(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. For the assessment year 1981-82 relevant to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1980, the petitioner did not file his return under the Income-tax Act, 1961, on or before the appointed date. In that view, the VIth Income-tax Officer, Hubli, commenced proceedings under section 147(a) of the Act and issued a consequent notice under section 148 of the Act calling upon the petitioner to file his return, with which the petitioner complied. On an examination of the return filed, the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on August 9, 1984, determined the taxes payable for the said year and levied a sum of Rs. 8,463 as interest thereon under section 139(8) of the Act. In this petition, under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the assessment order made by the Income-tax Officer on August 9, 1984, (Annexure A), in so far as it levied interest of Rs. 8,463 under section 139(8) of the Act. 2. Sri Kishore Mallya, learned counsel for the petition...
Motor Industries Company Limited Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1986
Reported in: [1990]67CompCas418(Kar)
K.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs (i) To issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the order if the respondent in Restrictive Trade Practice Enquiry No.8 of 1982 on the petitioner's application dated September 20, 1982 made under regulation 66 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations 1974. (ii) To issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the notice bearing No.20(226) RTP/82 dated August 19, 1982, issued by the respondent etc. as para (i) of annexure - Q; in so far as it relates to : (a) alleged discrimination in supplies of fuel injection equipment etc., as para (i) of annexure -Q (b) paras (ii)(a), (b) and para (iv) of annexure - Q. (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus, restraining the respondents from proceeding further with the enquiry in Enquiry No.8 of 1982 relating to the petitioner company in so far as the same relates to paras (i), (ii)(a) (b) and (iv) of t...
ideal Jawa (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC178; 1989(20)LC107(Karnataka); 1986(24)ELT226(Kar)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a Private Co., Ltd., manufacturing motor cycles known as Jawa/Yezdi of various capacity. the petitioner obtained a licence to manufacture motor-cycles in the year 1960. In the year 1971, Item No. 52 in the Central Excise Tariff was introduced, for the first time. That entry reads thus :- '52. Bolts and Nuts, threaded or tapped and screws, | Ten per centof base metal or Alloys thereof, in or in relation | ad valorem.to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily |carried on with the aid of power. |2. After the insertion of the said entry, the petitioner was asked to take out licence in respect of bolts and nuts manufactured by the petitioner-company. Those items are enumerated in the petition at page 15, and the description of the bolts and nuts and their functional utility is also given in the statement filed in that page. They also indicate the bolts and nuts used in the assembly of motor-cycles of different capacities. 3. Since the Department insisted...
Primary Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR427
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases are inter connected? we propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. As on 1-11-1956 on which day the new State of Karnataka comprising of the areas specified in Section 7 of the States Reorganization Act come into being, there were co-operative laws regulating the establishment, functioning and control of co-operative societies in the respective erstwhile areas of the new State. The new State by virtue of the powers derived by Article 246(3) and Entry 32 of List-II-State List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, enacted the uniform Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1959) ('the Act') repealing all the corresponding enactments referred to in Section 131 of that Act. The Act came into force from 1st June, 1960.3. Chapter XI of the Act containing Sections 76 to 98 as originally enacted made special provisions for the establishment of Land Mortgage Banks, their area o...
Srimanmaharaja Niranjana Jagadguru Mallikarjuna Murugarajendra Mahaswa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1059; 1986(1)KarLJ373
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this Writ Petition presented by Sri Murugharajendra Bruhan Mutt of Chitradurga, in which the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Coorg, made under Sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, ('the Act' for short), the following question of law arises for consideration :'Whether under Sub-section 3 of Section 136 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner has the power to interfere with an appellate order made by the authority exercising the appellate power under Sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Act ?'2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : Large extent of agricultural and forest lands in the district of Coorg had been granted to the petitioner-Mutt in the year 1796 AD by the then Maharaja of Coorg. This is evidenced by copper plate grants, the contents of which have been published in Epigraphic Karnataka Vol. 1 at page 12 (Exhibit-B). There were two branches of the petitioner-Mutt calle...
Motor Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practic ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2844
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-(i) To issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the order of the Respondent in Restrictive Trade practice Enquiry No. 8/1982 on the petitioner's application dated 20-9-1982 made under Regulation 66 of the MRTP Commission Regulation, 1974,(ii) To issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the notice bearing No. 20(226)-RTF/82 dated 19-8-1982 issued by the respondent, produced as Annexure-Q in so far as it relates to :(a) alleged discrimination in supplies of fuel injection equipment etc. as para (i) of Annexure-Q.(b) para (ii) (a), (b) and para (iv) of Annexure-Q(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus, restraining the respondents from proceeding further with the enquiry in the Enquiry No. 8/82 relating to the Petitioner-Company in so far as the same relates to paras (i), (ii) (a) and (b) and (iv) of the said notice dated 19-8-1982 (Annexure-Q).(iv) To grant such ot...
Chandrakanth Narayan Nayak Vs. Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Belg ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant52; ILR1986KAR2878
ORDER1. In these petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the orders dt. 2-7-1984 bearing No. DSA 54/J/CNW3630/DWD/84-85 (Annexure-A) and 19-71984 bearing No. DSA.83/J. CNW3630/DWD/84-85 (Annexure-B) passed by the 2nd respondent; and also the order D/- 19th Oct., 1984 passed by the first respondent in No.DCT.RGN.APLS.13 and 17/84-85, produced as Annexure-C.2.The petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. CNW/3630. It is a non-transport omni bus and taxed accordingly. Show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner under S. 33(l)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the' Act'), to show cause as to why the registration Certificate of the vehicle in question should not be suspended for carrying passengers on hire without a permit. The various dates on which the vehicle in question was used for conveying the passengers on hire and without a permit, and the routes on which the vehic...
Bharath Electronics Ltd. Vs. K. Kasi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR366; (1987)IILLJ203Kant
ORDER1. This Writ Petition is by M/s. Bharat Electronics, questioning the legality of the order made by the Industrial Tribunal Bangalore, rejecting its application made under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) seeking approval for the order by which the first respondent was dismissed from service. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The first respondent was an employee in the service of the petitioner. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him by the issue of charge sheet dated 18th October, 1979 (Annexure-A). It reads : 'CONFIDENTIAL Bharat Electronics Limited Jalahalli P.O., Bangalore-13. No. 031242/DIV-I/PD Date : 18th October, 1979. CHARGE-SHEET 3. For reasons stated infra, Sri K. Kasi, Staff No. 031242, is called upon to furnish his explanation within four days of receipt of this communication as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. REASONS : On 18th October, 1979 at about 8.45 a.m. in the...
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Gulab Singh and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1986
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR443]; ILR1987KAR353; (1986)IILLJ95Kant
1. The management of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has presented this petition praying for quashing the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, rejecting the application of the petitioner made under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act' for short) seeking approval for the dismissal from service of the first respondent. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : Respondent No. 1 was a workman in the service of the petitioner. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him with the issue of the charge sheet dated 17th September, 1981. It reads : 'Sub : Charge-sheetRef : Suspension Order No. A/APO-III 200/254/81dated 10.9.1981.During the month of August, 1981, you were posted to work in the second shift 16.15 hours to 0015 hours. On 31st August, 1981 which was a salary disbursement day, you entered the factory at about 9.15 a.m. and drew Rs. 295 as your salary. At about 10.30 a.m. on the same day, you went to Drop Tank Shop and were seen by Vigila...
Appaji Gowda Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR833
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Dispute relates to mutation of S. No. 3/3 situate a Channasandra Village. Assistant Commissioner, by his order, dated 3rd April 1984, after setting aside entry made in favour of one Kempaiah directed fresh disposal after notifying interested parties. Deputy Commissioner, in revision presented by third respondent, has set aside an order of Assistant Commissioner and directed that entry as it stood be continued till rights of parties are adjudicated by competent Civil Court.2. Main ground of attack by Sri Mohandas N. Hegde, Learned Counsel for petitioner, is that revision as against an order of Assistant Commissioner is not maintainable ; hence, order of Deputy Commissioner is null and void and without jurisdiction.3. Section 127 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') provides for recording rights of parties in revenue records of persons holding land, occupants, owners, mortgagees, landlords or tenants or assignees etc. Section...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »