Karnataka Court March 1988 Judgments

Administrator, Bangalore City Corporation Vs. Hindustan Milk Food Manu ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1988KAR2487

Rama Jois, J.1. In this Writ Appeal presented by the Corporation of the City of Bangalore against the order of the learned single Judge, the following question of law arises for consideration :-'Whether the appellant Corporation was liable to refund a part of the amount of octroi paid by the 1st respondent on the quantity of the Horlicks powder imported into the City of Bangalore on the respondents-1 and 2 informing the Corporation that they had despatched a part of the same from time to time by filling the same in bottles to places outside the City of Bangalore even though respondents-1 and 2 had not followed the procedure prescribed in Rules 24 and 25 of Bye-law No. 45 framed by the Corporation of the City of Bangalore and even though they had not even informed of such despatches as and when they were made?'2. The undisputed facts of the case are these: Respondent No. 1 is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. It manufactures 'Horlicks' in its two Factories s...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Thimmawwa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(1989)ACC51; ILR1989KAR1303; 1988(2)KarLJ378

Venkatachala, J1. Question of insurer's legal liability under a motor policy to indemnify the insured for risks of coolies employed in connection with loading and/or unloading of a trailer attached to a tractor, while they were carried in the trailer, arises for decision in these appeals.2. The common appellant in these appeals had issued a motor policy in respect of a tractor, to which a trailer was attached, in favour of its owner (Rasul Patel), a common respondent in these appeals. The said motor policy had covered the risks of five coolies employed in connection with loading and/or unloading the said trailer in lieu of the special premium received by the insurer at the rate of Rs. 8/- per cooli. Consequently, Endorsement 16, which concerns the legal liability to persons employed in connection with loading and/or unloading of a motor vehicle, was attached to the said policy. The said tractor, to which the trailer was attached, while carrying more than five coolies in the trailer alo...

S. Bheemappa and anr. Vs. the Returning Officer for Election to Indian ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1989Kant75; ILR1988KAR1726; 1988(1)KarLJ513

ORDER1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs :'a) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the Annexures-A and B and the entire proceedings of the respondent-returning officer for holding of ejections to Indian Medical Council, pursuant to Annexures-A and B by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction for quashing the same and for dir6cting the payment of costs of this proceeding by the 1st respondent to the petitioners in the ends of justice.b) any (and?) further pray for an interim relief staying all further proceedings of the respondent-returning officer for conducting elections to Indian Medical Council, pursuant to Annexures-A and B pending disposal -of this writ petition in the ends of justice.' ,2. 1. Annexure-A is the Notification dated 9-12-1987 issued by the Returning Officer (Respondent No. 1) under Section 3(1)(c) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter refe...

Deputy Commissioner Vs. Rudolph Fernandes

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1988KAR1086; 1988(1)KarLJ458

Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. This appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Dakshina Kannada, involves the interpretation of second proviso to Section 6A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short).2. The learned Single Judge held that for the release of the vehicle in lieu of its confiscation, the fine payable shall not exceed the market price of the essential commodity carried by the vehicle and not the market value of the vehicle. The State (through the Deputy Commissioner) is aggrieved by this interpretation.3. Section 6A(1) reads as follows:-'6A: Confiscation of essential commodity (1) Where any essential commodity is seized, in pursuance of an order under Section 3 in relation thereto, a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to the Collector of the district or the Presidency-town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector, may, if he thinks it e...

N. Manjayya Shetty Vs. Additional District Magistrate

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1989KAR1582; 1988(2)KarLJ285

ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. In these two petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 7-5-1986 bearing No. C.Disc.RTA. CR.293/85-86 (C5) and C.DS.RTA.CR.293/85-86 dated 7-5-1986 issued by the District Magistrate, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore and also the resolution dated 19-4-1986 passed by the Town Municipal Council, Coondapur, produced as Annexure-B. The petitioners have also sought for a direction in the nature of Mandamus restraining respondents 1 and 2 from giving effect to the impugned order Annexure-C.2. The petitioners contend that the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass an order for shifting the existing bus stand to another place; that as per the decision of the Supreme Court to which a reference will be made in the course of this order, it is only the Regional Transport Authority, which grants the permit, alone is competent to change the bus stand; that the Municipality with a view to favour...

K.G. Kallappa and Co. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1988KAR2722

ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners who are traders in agricultural produce have challenged the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 1980 (Karnataka Act No. 17/1980) by which various items of agricultural produce including oil seeds were specified in the schedule which could be notified for the purpose of regulating their marketing under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 as also Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act, as amended by Amending Act 29/87, by which the sale and purchase of the agricultural produce is directed to take place only within the market yard or market sub-yard or the sub-market yard as the case may be, as also the provisions of Section 65 as amended by Act No. 29/87 and Section 65-A inserted into the Act by the said amendment which provides for fixing the time for payment of market-fee and provide for penalty for no...

Vishal Enterprises Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1988]174ITR548(KAR); [1988]174ITR548(Karn)

S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioner-firm is engaged in the business of buying and selling timber obtained from the State Government and its agencies and is an income-tax assessee. It has challenged, in this writ petition, the Press Note dated June 23, 1988, issued by the Ministry of Finance, a copy of which is produced as annexure A to the writ petition. 2. By the Finance Act of 1988, section 44AC, which is a special provision for computing profits and gains from the business of trading in certain goods, was inserted with effect from April 1, 1989, and made applicable to the period relevant for the assessment year 1989-90. By the application of this provision, a certain percentage of the purchase price paid or payable by the buyer in respect of specified goods shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of the buyer from the business of trading in such goods, chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act. 3. In the case of assessees dealing in alcoholic liquor, a sum equal to 40%...

G.N. Sunanda Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1988)73CTR(Kar)33; 1988(3)KarLJ385

S. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. One Murugappa who held partnership interest in three firms died on November 17, 1972, leaving his widow, minor son and a minor daughter. During his lifetime, the income from each of these three firms was assessed in his hands in the status of a Hindu undivided family. After his death, his wife, the applicant herein, became a partner in the firms in which he was a partner in his individual capacity. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), to assess such share income in the hands of the applicant and her children as an association of persons. The applicant filed her return declaring that she had no income in that status. Her case was that her income should have been assessed as that of a Hindu undivided family. But the Income-tax Officer rejected this plea and brought to tax the income in question in the hands of an association of persons. The applicant took up the matter in...

M.J. Rodrigues Vs. Controller of Estate Duty

Court: Karnataka

S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This is a reference made under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), requiring our opinion on the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the value of the Eliza Estate gifted by the deceased to his two sons, Michael and James, was includible in the principal value of the estate of the deceased under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?' 2. The facts leading up to this reference are set out hereinafter : Shri A. A. Rodrigues, in his letter dated December 11, 1957, suggested to his son, James, who was in U.S.A., to form a partnership to manage the coffee estate between themselves and his other son, Michael, to which the latter son had already assented. On April 26, 1958, he gifted one portion of the coffee estate, namely, Eliza Estate, to Michael and another portion of the same estate to James by two deeds which were registered on Ap...

Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1988)71CTR(Kar)166; ILR1988KAR2012; [1989]175ITR220(KAR); [1989]175ITR220(Karn); 1988(3)KarLJ460

Balakrishna, J.1. In these three references which have been made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the following questions of law arise for consideration : 2. At instance of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a sum of Rs. 3,61,236 contributed towards the cost of construction of a road is not an admissible deduction in computing the business income ?' 3. At the instance of the Department : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Commissioner's (Appeals) order who held that depreciation has to be allowed on increase in value of the assets due to fluctuation in exchange rate (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing a sum of Rs. 75,600 paid as filing fee as 'revenue expenditure' (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the App...