Karnataka Court August 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.
Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1986
Reported in: 1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)
ORDER1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. 2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. 3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coi...
Sri Siddalingeshwara Adike Stores Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR4073
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In these Writ Petitions, presented by the petitioners, who are traders as also commission agents licenced under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, (the Act for short), the following question of law arises for consideration :Whether Sections 78 and 79-A of the Act introduced into the Act by the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1986 (Ordinance for short), which provides for the collection of commission, payable to commission agents from the buyers, are unconstitutional?In order to appreciate the question arising for consideration, it is necessary to make a brief survey of the relevant provisions of the Act, as it stood prior to the ordinance as also the substantial changes brought about by the Ordinance. The Act was enacted to provide for the better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment and administration of markets for agricultural...
Mahantaswamy and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2970
ORDER1. This is a petition by A-16 to A-18 against the order dated 17-10-1985 passed by the Magistrate, Yelburga, in Criminal Case No. 157/85 proposing to frame a charge against them for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 506, 323, 324, 354, 355, 341, 448, 342, 109 read with S. 149, I.P.C. 2. A-16 Mahanata swamy is stated to be the Matadipathi of a Mutt known as Mysore Mutt situate in Kudrimoti village of Yelburga taluk. Virupaksha Gowda, C.W. 2, was working as a teacher in a Primary School at Kudrimoti. He was living with his wife Parvatavva C.W. 1 and his children including C.Ws. 3 and 4 in Kudrimoti. His wife Parvatavva C.W. 1 was going to the said Mutt to offer prayers to the Gaddige and also for attending Akkana Balaga. According to the prosecution, on 9-4-1985 Parvatavva C.W. 1 had gone to the Mutt and at that time A-16 had an occasion to see her and requested her to have illicit connection with him. According to the prosecution, Parvatavva C.W. 1 resented that move ...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India TIn Industries (P) Ltd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3918; [1987]166ITR454(KAR); [1987]166ITR454(Karn)
Mahendra, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ('Tribunal'), pursuant to the directions issued by this court in C. P. No. 127 of 1976, 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 is right in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision in canceling the rectification orders passed by the Income-tax Officer to withdraw the excess allowance of development rebate allowed in the original assessment ?' 2. The facts as found by the Tribunal and not disputed before us are these : 3. M/s. The India Tin Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (assessee) is a private company deriving income for the manufacture and sale of tin containers, etc. The assessment year is 1963-64, the relevant previous year being the year ending on June 30, 1962. The assessee claimed development rebate of Rs. 16,751 including development rebate of Rs. 5,740 on dies and tools. The Income-tax Officer dis...
T. Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1673; 1986(2)KarLJ165
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Petitioner in first case has challenged the validity of auction proceedings, dated 2-5-1986, of Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Bangalore, disposing of right of retail vend of toddy in Bangalore District and provisional acceptance of bid offered by fourth respondent.Petitioners in second case have challenged the validity of provisional acceptance of bid offered by twelfth respondent (who is no other than fourth-respondent in first Writ Petition) and for convenience, hereafter referred to as 'contesting respondent', in respect of retail vend of toddy and arrack at places mentioned in schedule to Petition including Bangalore District.2. Though attack is as against provisional acceptance of bid offered by contesting respondent, they vary in form.3. Brief averments in first case are :-Commissioner of Excise, Karnataka, in Notification No. EXE. EXS-1-2/86-87, dated 16th April 1986 published in Karnataka Gazettee dated 17th April 1986 notified disposal of right of re...
Nagappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3093
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated April 2, 1986 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No. 2518 of 1986. The petitioners therein are some persons interested either in purchasing or disposing of their landed properties. They apprehend that the Circular issued by the second respondent, which has been filed as Annexure 'B' to the Writ Petition, requiring the registering authority to value the property at the rates mentioned therein would affect their interest, if any registration is to be made. The case of the appellants is that similar Circular has been held to be invalid by several decisions of this Court and in particular the decisions of this Court in M.G. Kulkarni -v.- State of Karnataka, : ILR1985KAR2152 and Nagaraja -v.- State of Karnataka, : ILR1985KAR4113 . 2. We have perused the said decisions and also the averments made in the Writ Petition. In our opinion, it is not necessary for every person to approach this Court for a rel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›