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.
Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Basalingappa Parappa Angadi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR365; 1987(1)KarLJ432
Kulkarni, J.1. This is an appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer against the judgment and award dated 25-8-1983 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Bijapur, in L. A. C. No. 732 of 1982 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,250 - per acre.2. Survey No. 62/1 measuring 6 acres 14 guntas of Takkalki Village in Meddebihal Taluk, was acquired for Upper Krishna Projects as per the preliminary Notification published on 11-2-1971.3. The claimant stated that there was source of water for irrigating the land in question and that he was raising two crops in the land in question. There is no satisfactory evidence to show that there was any source of water to irrigate the land. He has not produced the record of rights to show that he was raising two crops. But for the tainted, interested and self-serving say of the claimant, there is no other evidence to show that two crops were being raised in the land in question. The Land Acquisition Officer also has stated that one crop alone was being ra...
Khoday Industries P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Kar)62; [1987]163ITR646(KAR); [1987]163ITR646(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. In this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, 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 circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in denying the deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the assesses company ?'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. A partnership firm called M/s. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons, Bangalore, was carrying on business in the manufacture of Indian made foreign liquors, gem clips and pins, carbon papers, typewriter ribbons, stamp pads, inks, aniline printing conversion of flexible, packaging materials, an engineering workshop and silk and twisting of silk yarn under different trade names. ...
Mukunda Vs. Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR769; (1986)ILLJ470Kant
ORDER1. These petitions are disposed of by a common order since a common question of law arises for consideration in all petitions. 2. The petitioners are badli conductors working under the first respondent-Corporation and their services had been terminated by the Corporation on the ground that their work was found to be unsatisfactory and therefore they were unsuitable for the post of conductors. It is an undeniable fact in all these cases that the Corporation did not hold an enquiry into the alleged unsuitability of their services from the point of view of their utilisation but merely issued a memo stating that they were found unsuitable for the post for which they were utilised as Badli. One such order reads as under : 'KSRTC, Mysore Division : MYSORE. No. KST. MYS. EST. R. 518/83, dated 25/27th May, 1983. Read : No. KST. MYS. EST. R. 805 dated 13th May, 1981 enlisting Shri H. V. Mukunda, as a Badli Conductor, Depot I. Shri H. V. Mukunda, was utilised as a Badli conductor, on bad...
G.V. Munivenkatashamy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR650
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 19-4-1985, bearing No. CMW 53 CCB 85, passed by the State Government, produced as Annexure-B.2. The petitioner has also sought for an amendment to include an additional prayer to declare that Section 29(1)(d) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is unconstitutional and to strike down the same. Though the application seeking amendment is filed at the stage of hearing, since the amendment sought for is necessary, the petitioner is permitted to amend the petition and seek the relief relating to the validity of Section 29(1)(d) of the Act.3. The petitioner has been elected as a Director of the second respondent Bank on 6-10-1985. On 19-4-1985 by the impugned order, the State Government has nominated on the Board of Directors of the second respondent-Bank, respondents 3, 4 and 5 in exercise of its power under S...
Bengal Electric Lamps Works Ltd. and anr. Vs. Collector of Central Exc ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC216; 1986(25)ELT38(Kar)
1. The two show-cause notices issued by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore on 21.7.1977 and 17.7.1979 are challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner, which is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. 2. The first petitioner is a manufacturer of electric bulbs, fluorescent tubes in its two factories - one in Calcutta and another in Bangalore. The goods manufactured by the petitioners are dutiable under Entry 32 of first schedule to the Central Excise Act. The products are sold to various wholesale dealers appointed at different places in the country. Supplies were made to the wholesale dealers after deducting a uniform 'discount' of 50% of the list price. 3. For the period commencing from 15.10.1973 upto 15.1.1974 the price list No. 1/74 to be effective from 15.1.1974 was approved by the department and assessments were finalised. The discount which was allowed to the dealers was disclosed as 50% of the list price. The price list filed upto 15.9.1975 on ...
Himalaya Drug Co. Makali Vs. Ii Additional Labour Court, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-1986
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR704]; ILR1986KAR1553; (1986)IILLJ45Kant
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Labour Court rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that a specific plea was not taken in the statement of objections filed by it on the maintainability of the claim for bonus by respondents Nos. 2 to 16 (workmen). The petitioner has taken a specific contention in paragraph 5 of the statement of objections as follows : 'The applicants are not entitled to any bonus as they were dismissed for serious act of misconduct involving moral turpitude, violent and destructive acts causing loss and damage to the respondent. The applicants are disqualified from claiming bonus. Thereby, the applicants have forfeited their claims for bonus as per the provisions of law.' Though the petitioner had not mentioned the specific section under which it was resisting the claim for bonus, the pleadings in paragraph 5 of the statement of objections leave no doubt that it was with reference to S. 9 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (the Act). 3. Ev...
Srimanthi Vs. Chief Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3399
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. Though this petition is posted for orders, having regard to the fact that it relates to a no confidence motion moved and passed against the petitioner and also that it can be disposed of on a short point, it is taken up for final disposal by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.2.1 The petitioner was elected as the President of the Town Municipal Council, Sadalga, Belgaum District. The case of the petitioner as pleaded in the petition is that she received the communication dated 14-10-1985, produced as Annexure - A from the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, requesting her to take necessary action as per the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') regarding the notice dated 25-9 1985 given by the Councillors to move motion of no confidence against the petitioner; that she came to know of the intention of the Councillors to move motion of no confidence only through the communication dated 14-10-1985 (Annexure-A) ; that s...
Hegde and Vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR604
Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioner-Company, which is a manufacturer of watch as, imported certain components for the purpose of manufacture of watches in its factory.2. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Bangalore levied additional duty or counter-veiling duty on the watch components so imported by the petitioner under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. This levy is challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.3. The petitioner, relying upon the Notification 240/78/ Cus., Annexure-C, has urged that the levy of additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act is without authority of law and has prayed for a consequential order of refund of the duty so paid and collected.The petitioner has also relied upon Notification 178/77 issued under Rule 8 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, which is superseded by Notification 201/79.4. The Writ Petition is resisted on behalf of the Revenue by Sri Shivashankar Bhat that the Writ Petition filed with-out exhausting ...
Hegde and Golay Limited and anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-1986
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC140; 1986(25)ELT47(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The Petitioner-Company, which is a manufacturer of watches, imported certain components for the purpose of manufacture of watches in its factory.2. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Bangalore levied additional duty or countervailing duty on the watch components so imported by the petitioner under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. This levy is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.3. The petitioner, relying upon the notification 240/78/Cus, Annexure-C, has urged that the levy of additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act is without authority of law and has prayed for a consequential order of refund of the duty so paid and collected.The petitioner has also relied upon notification 178/77 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, which is superseded by notification 201/79.4. The writ petition is resisted on behalf of the Revenue by Sri Shivashankar Bhat that the writ petition filed without exhaust...
Karnataka Urban Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Karnataka Urban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-01-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2862
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the proceedings in Dispute No. 83/79 on the file of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Circle No 1, Bangalore, and also to quash the orders dated 6-4-1985 and 28-6-85 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 110 of 1985, produced as Annexures F, G and H respectively.2. The petitioners 2 to 7 and respondents 3 to 5 claim to be the members of the Committee of Management of the first petitioner-society. There was a dispute raised by Sri Chellaiah and Lakkappa for a declaration that the petitioners 2 to 7 and respondents 3 to 5 are not the members of the Managing Committee of the first petitioner-society ; as such, they have no manner of right to call the General Body Meeting of the first petitioner-society. There was a contention raised by the petitioners 2 to 7 and respondents 3 to 5 before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »