Karnataka Court November 1987 Judgments
Dr. Krishna Prasad Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1987
Reported in: II(1988)ACC423; ILR1988KAR923
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. The accused by this petition requests for quashing theproceedings in C.C. No. 832 of 1987 pending on the file of the JudicialMagistrate First Class, Puttur.2. The material facts leading to the present case are as under:-The deceased Vasanti was the wife of the complainant HarischandraC.W. 1 who is working as P.S.I. S.D. Unit, Mangalore. The deceasedVasanti was married to the complainant Harischandra C.W.1 on23-4-1984. The deceased was about 21 years old when she was married tothe complainant Harischandra. She was pregnant by about 8 months by28-12-1985. On 12-1-1986 the deceased's mother Mrs. Leelavathi and thedeceased's father Purushothama Achar went to the complainant and tookthe deceased Vasanti to their house as it was her first delivery. Thecomplainant Harischandra was getting his wife Vasanti examined at thehands of Dr. H.S. Somasekhar Rao of Vasudev Clinic of Mulki ever sinceshe was carrying five months till she was taken by her parents on12-1-1986. The said ...
Tag this Judgment!C.B. Bhandari Vs. Provident Fund Inspector, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR900; (1988)IILLJ400Kant
1. In view of the memo filed, the cases had been posted today for being spoken to. The order dated 25th November, 1987 allowing these petitions is recalled and full-fledged arguments of the learned Central Government Counsel and Sri Sastry for the accused are heard and the matter are thus finally disposed of. 2. These petitions raise a very substantial question of general importance as to whether the failure to file the returns as laid down by para 36(2)(a) and (2)(b) and para 38(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'), would amount to continuing offence or an offence committed once and for all. 3. All the complaints, C.C. No. 826 of 1986 to C.C. Nos. 849 and 909 to 932 of 1986, have been filed by the Provident Fund Inspector alleging that the accused failed to submit the returns as laid down by para 36(2)(a) and (2)(b) and para 38(2) of the Scheme. Para 36(2)(a) and (2)(b) of the Scheme read : '(2) Every employer shall send to the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Karmadi Stone Cutting and Polishing Vs. Joint Commissioner of Commerci ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC345(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ('the Act'). The assessment was completed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Hubli, accepting the returns under section 12(2) of the Act. 2. By Act No. 10 of 1983, which came into force with effect from 1st April, 1983, section 22-A of the Act was amended by conferring the power of revision on the Joint Commissioner also. The definition of 'Commissioner' in section 2(g) was also amended inserting 'Joint Commissioner' after the word 'Commissioner'. 3. A notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner, the respondent in the writ petition, in exercise of his powers conferred under section 22-A(1) of the Act read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act proposing to set aside the assessment order dated 20th August, 1985 in the petitioner's case for the year 1981-82 and to remand the case to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Assessments) to make a fresh assessment in accordan...
Tag this Judgment!C.B. Bhandari Vs. Provident Fund Inspector, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-1987
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas850(Kar); 1987(3)KarLJ244; (1988)IILLJ400Kant
1. In view of the memo filed, the cases had been posted today for being spoken to. The order dated 25th November, 1987, allowing these petitions is recalled and full-fledged arguments of the learned Central Government Counsel and Sri Sastry for the accused are heard and the matters are thus finally disposed of. 2. These petitions raise a very substantial question of general importance as to whether the failure to the file the returns as laid down by para 36(2)(a) and (2)(b) and para 38(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'), would amount to continuing offence or an offence committed once and for all. 3. All the complaints, C.C.No. 826 of 1986 to C.C.Nos. 849 and 909 to 932 of 1986, have been filed by the Provident Fund Inspector alleging that the accused failed to submit the returns as laid down by para 36(2)(a) and (2)(b) and para 38(2) of the Scheme. Para 36(2)(a) and (2)(b) of the Scheme read : '(2) Every employer shall send to th...
Tag this Judgment!N.G. Rama Prasad Vs. B.C. Vanamala
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant162; ILR1988KAR142; 1988(1)KarLJ30
Rama Jois, J.1. In this Miscellaneous Appeal, arising under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the following question of law arises for consideration :Whether the Court before which a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 seeking decree of divorce by consent is presented can proceed to consider the petition on merits, after the expiry of six months from the date of presentation, if one of the parties to the petition withdraws the consent given or refuses to join the other to make. a motion for consideration of the petition on merits?2. The facts of the -case, in brief, are as follows.: The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 22-2-1981. An application was made before the Court of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore on 7-8-1985 under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act' for short). It was registered as M.C. No. 210/85. No steps were taken by both the parties for the disposal of the petition which they could have do...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.M. Salgaocar and Bros. (P) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1987
Reported in: [1990]185ITR469(KAR); [1990]185ITR469(Karn)
M. Rama Jois, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka, has presented this petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, praying for the issue of a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, to draw up a statement of case and refer the following five questions of law for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who directed the Income-tax Officer to grant investment allowance without deducting the subsidy received from the Government from the cost of the assets 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that depreciation should be granted without deducting the subsidy amount of Rs. 15 lakhs from the cost of the plant and machinery 3. Whether, on the facts and...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Srinivasa Saw Mills and Wood Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1987
Reported in: [1988]172ITR571(KAR); [1988]172ITR571(Karn); 1988(1)KarLJ165
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This matter coming up for orders, is taken up for final disposal and after hearing learned counsel on both sides, is disposed of by the following order. 2. As agreed to on the last occasion, when the matter earlier appeared on November 16, 1987, I recorded in the order sheet as follows : 'Heard in part. Prima facie, there is no cause shown for interfering with the order. The short question which falls for determination is whether the Deputy Commissioner who imposed some conditions while calling for tenders has the power to relax some of those conditions in public interest, particularly, in accounting for considerable savings in the outlay of expenditure for building Janatha houses. Sri Sridharan says that the Deputy Commissioner does not have such power and that he will support that proposition by judicial authority. Call this matter next week.' 3. To-day, the Government advocate has produced the records for the perusal of the court. 4. Sri Sridharan has ...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1987
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(Kar)255; ILR1988KAR96; [1988]172ITR561(KAR); [1988]172ITR561(Karn)
H.G. Balakrishna, J.1. The following questions of law arising out of the orders passed in I.T.A. Nos. 6 and 12 (Bangalore) of 1978-79 dated September 17, 1980, have been referred to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, for opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant was not entitled to development rebate on safe deposit lockers (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 6,12,677 is taxable as income of the assessee for the assessment year 1973-74 2. The facts of the cases behind the above formulation of questions of law are these : The assessee, which is common to both the cases, is the Syndicate Bank which is a nationalised banking institution and a public limited company. Before we set out further facts, we wish to make it clear that we are confining...
Tag this Judgment!Rajanna Vs. Chayapathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR198
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. Criminal Revision Petition No. 504/87 by the complaints Nos. 1 and 2 is directed against the order dated June 26, 1987 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 23/87 setting aside the order dated February 7, 1987 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No. 1461/85 ordering the framing of a charge against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for an offence under Sections 417 and 421 I.P.C., and the consequent order of remand made by the Sessions Judge to the trial Court.Shri Venkataranga Iyengar submitted that he appears for the respondents in Criminal Petition No. 1224/87. Arguments of all Advocates are heard on final merits in both the cases.2. The material facts are as under :- The complainant No. 1 is the father of complainant No. 2 - Jayarathnamma. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are father and son respectively. The accused No. 1 and 2, on 29-8-1983, are stated to have borrowed Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Hada and ors. Vs. the Binny Ltd. Staff Association
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR3762; (1988)ILLJ405Kant
Prem Chand Jain, C.J.1. The question of law that needs our decision, reads thus :- 'Whether a complaint lodged by a private individual securing permission from the Government or the Labour Commissioner as the case may be could be regarded as a complaint made under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Government or the Labour Commissioner or under its or his authority ?' 2. S. N. Hada and others have filed these petitions for the quashing of the order No. IAA/CR-217/81-82, dated 11th May 1982 passed by the Labour Commissioner - third respondent (Annexure-J) as being illegal and void. The Commissioner of Labour by virtue of his order, which has been impugned in these petitions, has granted permission to the Binny Mills Staff Association to prosecute the management of M/s. Binny Limited (The Bangalore Woolen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co., Ltd.), Bangalore, for violation of some of the terms of agreement dated 8th of December 1980 (Annexure-G). When the petitions came up for heari...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »