Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR807; 1989(1)KarLJ225
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J1. This is a defendant's appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 30-6-1988 in Original Suit No. 22 of 1987 on the file of the Civil Judge, Gadag.2. The undisputed facts, which are set out in the course of the Judgment under appeal may be stated briefly and they are as follows:In the course of this Judgment, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court.The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of suit land. The suit was registered and defendant was served with notices. He entered appearance through Counsel on 7-8-1987. On 7-9-1987, 9-10-1987, 9-11-1987 and 4-12-1987 the suit was adjourned for the purpose of filing written statement. But on 4-12-1987 Counsel for defendant retired from the case and a new Counsel appeared for the defendant and sought further time to file the written statement. The case was adjourned to 22-1-1988. On 22-1-1988, no written statement was filed and that fact was recorded in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the petitioner herein. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1976-77. The assessment was completed on March 21, 1979. Penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, by notice dated March 21, 1979, which was served on the assessee on March 27, 1979. The assesses respondent filed a reply thereto on March 29, 1979. An order imposing the penalty was passed on March 18, 1981, by the successor Income-tax Officer, in exercise of his powers under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The respondent /assessee took up the matter in appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, by order dated December 30, 1983, held that the levy of penalty cannot be sustained since the successor Income-tax Officer who levied the penalty did not give an opportunity to the assesses respondent to be heard. The order imposing the penalty was set aside and a direction was given to the Income-tax Off...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1989Kant226; ILR1989KAR457
Rama, J.1. Seminal questions of National importance arise for consideration in these ten writ petitions presented by the Linguistic Minorities in the State, questioning the constitutional validity of the order of the State Government which makes the study of Kannada, the official language of the State, in addition to mother-tongue by children belonging to linguistic minority groups, from the first year of the Primary Schools, compulsory, and prescribing Kannada as the sole First Language in the Secondary Schools. They are:-Whether the Order of the State Government which prescribes that Kannada which is the regional and the official language of the State - - (i) a compulsory subject for study for children belonging to linguistic minority groups in Primary Schools, in addition to the mother-tongue of the children concerned from the first year of primary school, and (ii) the sole first language in the secondary schools, is violative of Arts. 14, 29, 30 and 350A of the Constitution of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1869; 1989(3)KarLJ67
ORDERBalakrishna, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the endorsements issued by respondent-2 refusing to regularise the sale deeds and to make necessary changes of khatha of the lands in favour of the petitioners.2. The material facts of the case are:According to the petitioners, the lands in question were inferior service inamthi lands known as 'Neeraganti Inamthi lands' which were alienated by the inam holders for valuable consideration in favour of the petitioners-The 1st petitioner purchased 35 guntas of dry land in Sy. No. 81 of Neraluru under a registered sale deed executed on 5-6-1967 by respondent-6 putting the petitioner in possession of the same. The 2nd petitioner purchased 3 guntas of land in Sy.No. 152, 4 guntas of land in Sy.No. 154, 71/2 guntas of land in Sy. No. 183 and 61/2 guntas of land in Sy. No. 190 of the same village under a registered sale deed executed on 5-8-1968 and he was put in possession of the lands by respondents-3 to 5. The 3rd petitioner, who belon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant182; ILR1989KAR1788
ORDER1. Some of the petitioners are saved operators and the remaining are theoperators on the Inter-State Routes. Each one of them has applied for renewal of their stage carriage permits before the second respondent. The 4th respondent-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation in short) has also made applications on each one of the routes concerned herein for grant of permits. Thus the applications filed by the petitioners for renewal of their permits and the applications filed by the the 4th respondent for grant of permits on the very routes are pending before the second respondent. At this stage the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ of prohibition against the Chairman of the second respondent on the ground that she being a member of the Board of Directors of the 4th respondent, is disqualified in Saw to function either as a member or as the Chairman the second respondent. In addition to this prayer there are various other prayers made in each one of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1989(20)ECC109; ILR1989KAR920
Hiremath, J1. Respondent is the manufacturer of industrial varnishes whose product is liable to excise duty under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The Central Government however issued a notification No. 116/74 dated 21-7-1974 acting under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules 1944, exempting such goods from excise duty provided that the value of the total production does not exceed Rs. 2,00,000/-. The respondent was not aware of such notification till about the month of April 1978 when it was brought to their notice by a certain official of the Central Excise Department. Therefore, as usual it paid the duty on the goods manufactured during 1974-75 and 1975-76. For these two years the total excise duty paid came to Rs. 10,194-93ps. As the respondent has been paying excise duty in accordance with provisions of Section 79B of the Central Excise Rules the fact that the respondent is not liable to pay any excise duty could be made out only at the end of March 1976 at which time the total pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1081; 1989(1)KarLJ409
ORDERBopanna, J.1. Issues in this election petition were settled on 30-11-1988 and the case was posted for trial on 23-1-1989. Parties had filed their respective lists of documents and witnesses as directed by this Court and the case was taken up for trial on 23-1-1988. On that day Respondent-2 filed an application under Section 151, Order 14 Rule 2, Order 7 Rule 11, Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 83 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (In short the Act). In that application he had made the following prayer:a) that issue numbers 1 and 2 be tried as preliminaryminary issues. A finding thereon in favour of Respondent No. 2 will dispose of Issues 3 to 7, 14 and 16, and obviate recording of voluminous evidence;b) that in view of the fact that the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 83 of the Act the petition should be dismissed in limine and as that question is a pure question of law which could be decid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant149; 1989(2)KarLJ31
ORDERChandrakantharaj Urs, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Decree dt. 5-10-1985 in O.S. No. 27 of 1984 on the file of the learned Civil Judge,Chickmagalur. The order-judgment and decree is made under O. VII R. 1 l(b) of the C.P.C. for non-compliance with direction of the Court on issue No. 1 framed in the suit. A revision was preferred against the finding recorded on that issue No. 1, which was tried as preliminary issue, under S. 115 of the C.P.C. in C.R.P. No. 1139 of 1986 on the file of this Court. On 19-3-1986, this Court admitted the Revision Petition and directed emergent notice and also directed stay of further proceedings. Even before the Revision Petition was admitted and interim stay granted, the plaint had been rejected as earlier narrated. In the result this Court in C.R.P. made an order on 13-7-1987 directing the Revision Petition to be posted along with Regular First Appeal No. 702 of 1986, which had since been filed in this Court and with which we a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1990(60)FLR210]; ILR1989KAR1322; (1991)ILLJ533Kant
D.P. Hiremath, J.1. Appeal coming up for admission. Admitted. Heard on merits.2. The appellant herein is employed as a fitter under the second respondent - Southern Roadways which operates goods transport vehicles between different places spread over the States in Southern India. Initially he was appointed as a cleaner and thereafter promoted as a fitter. His appointment in the first instance was at Madurai in the Central Maintenance and Parts Department in the year 1966 and thereafter was transferred for the first time to Bangalore office in the year 1987. In the same year he was transferred to Madurai again in the month of September, and then to Bangalore on 1st January, 1988. Thereafter, by an order dated 11th April, 1988 he was transferred to Mangalore with effect from 12th April, 1988. This last transfer, according to him, was to a place where there was no Maintenance Department at all in which his services could be utilised and the action, of the respondents in transferring him t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1992]197ITR692(KAR); [1992]197ITR692(Karn)
H.G. Balakrishna, J.1. By consent of both counsel, this writ petition was taken up for hearing and arguments were heard and disposed of.2. The short point for consideration is whether the first respondent has jurisdiction to enhance the interest in reassessment proceedings and whether he has jurisdiction to levy such enhanced interest.3. The question is answered by the decision cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in paragraph 5 of the writ petition in Charles D'Souza v. CIT : [1984]147ITR694(KAR) . It was held thus (headnote) :'There can be levy of interest only in cases of regular assessment as defined by Section 2(40) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The expression 'regular assessment' as defined by Section 2(40) means assessment made under Section 143 or Section 144 in contradistinction to assessments under Section 140A, a provisional assessment before its abolition in 1971 and an assessment/reassessment under Section 147. When the expression 'regular assessment' is defined to m...
Tag this Judgment!