Karnataka Court November 1989 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.
Deputy Commissioner Vs. Veerappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR193; 1990(3)KarLJ525
Mohan, C.J.1. The respondent (Veerappa) was granted a licence to run a touring cinema at Soolebavi, Hunagund taluk in Bijapur District. He made an application on 13th January 1986 for the renewal of the said licence. On 16-1-1986 he also made an application for the issuance of a fresh 'No Objection Certificate (to be shortly called 'N.O.C.') under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 (to be called the 'Rules'). The application for the renewal of licence was pending. It was at this stage the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Act, came into force. That contained an enabling provision, by reason of which all those who held licence for touring cinema on or before 25-2-1987 (the date on which the amending Act, came into force) were enabled to renew their N.O.C. for converting the touring cinema into a semi permanent cinema. Since the applications of the respondent for grant of N.O.C. were under consideration, in that the Tahsildar, Hunagund, on 8-8-1986 replied him that t...
State of Karnataka Vs. Basavaraju
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1989
Reported in: II(1990)DMC238; ILR1990KAR774; 1990(3)KarLJ491
Hiremath, J1. Heard.2. The three accused who are respondents in this appeal were charge sheeted before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore District, for an offence under Section 498-A IPC alleging that they were demanding dowry of Rs. 10,000/- from her even three years after marriage as also a Television set. They even threatened that on her failure of over A-1 would take another wife in marriage. Cruelty was alleged against them for this reason. Before the trial Court a compromise petition came to be filed contending that A-1 respondent-1 and his wife Shantha kumari CW-1 were co-habiting cordially for about six months before the impugned order came to be passed on 24-5-1989. The prosecution opposed according permission for compounding as the offence is a non-compoundable one. The trial Court at the outset observed that strictly speaking it does not amount to demanding dowry in as much as ft was being made nearly three years after marriage and after a child was born to th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)82CTR(Kar)255; [1990]183ITR113(KAR); [1990]183ITR113(Karn)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This is reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question of law referred for our opinion is as follows: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right law in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 and holding that the excess amount of Rs. 43,10,110 collected over and above the price of sugar fixed by the Government does not form part of the turnover and is not liable to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 2. The facts leading up to the reference, in brief, are as follows: The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of sugar. The Government of India, in exercise of its powers under the Essential Commodities Act, fixed the price of levy sugar produced for the season 1971-72 at Rs. 124.55 and Rs. 125.10 per quintal for the two varieties. The assessee challenged the legality of t...
State of Karnataka Vs. Sanjiv Mehra and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1989
Reported in: [1990]79STC372(Kar)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The respondent in these two cases is a dealer in slotted angles, door closers, paint brushes, etc. For the assessment years 1975-76 and 1978-79 the assessing authority held that door closers are machinery covered by entry 20 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act') and levied tax at the rate provided under that entry on the particular turnover. An appeal was filed against that order and the first appellate authority agreed with the finding of the assessing authority. When the matter was carried in second appeal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that door closers do not answer the description of the term 'machinery' dealt in entry 20 of the Second Schedule to the Act and hence remitted the matter to the assessing authority to levy tax on the respondent under the appropriate provision but not under entry 20 of the Second Schedule to the Act. Aggrieved by his order the Revenue has come up in revision before this Court. ...
John Shalex Paints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1989
Reported in: 1990(26)ECC183
ORDERS.R. Rajasekara Murthy, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of paints, pigments, colours, varnishes, etc. Among the several items manufactured by the petitioner, 'Super Blucem' used as a decorative water-proof cement, is one of the items supplied to M/s. Garware Paints Limited, Bombay copy of which is produced as Annexure 'E' under which the petitioner undertook to supply the Blucem cement paint manufactured by it to M/s. Garware Paints Ltd. The said cement paint is marketed by M/s. Garware Paints under the brand name 'Blucem'. The duration of such supply covered by the agreement was for the period 1.4.1982 to 31.3.1984. The other clauses in the said agreement relates to minimum monthly supply and the supervision by M/s. Garware Paints Limited as to quality control, etc.2. On 24.8.1983, petitioner filed the first classification list in Form I giving out the particulars of all excisable goods. Item I in the list of items referred to 'Super Blucem'. A concessional rate of 2% levy ...
Indian Oxygen Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1989
Reported in: [1990]79STC351(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner in all the revision petitioner was assessed under section 5(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), regarding the sale of articles called 'medicinal oxygen' and 'nitrous oxide' used for the purpose of anaesthesia, by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, for the years 1973-74 to 1976-77. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, however, invoked his power under section 21 of the Act and held that the classification was wrong and treated the oxygen as falling within entry 121 of the Second Schedule to the treated the Act. This order of the Deputy Commissioner was affirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Hence these revision petitions. 2. The short question for consideration is, whether the oxygen called 'medicinal oxygen' falls within entry 121 of the Second Schedule The said entry reads as follows : 'Industrial gas, such as oxygen, Thirteen per cemt'.acetylene, nitrogen and the like.3. According to Sri S. G. Sund...
High Court of Karnataka Vs. Y.K. Subbanna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1159; ILR1989KAR3572; 1990(1)KarLJ201
Navadgi, J.1. The proceedings in the top noted matter have been registered on the basis of the order dated October 11, 1984 made by a Division Bench of this Court in Regular First Appeal No. 206/80. The proceedings came to be registered and initiated against Y. K. Subbanna, Kamaiah, K. Jayaramm, Y. K. Ramakrishna, Smt. Marakka and Smt. Shantamma - Accused Nos. 1 to 6 respectively - who would be hereinafter referred to as accused with reference to their respective array, under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the following circumstances : 2. Accused Nos. 1 to 6 are related to each other. Their relationship inter se is as under : Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are to sons of accused No. 2. Accused No. 5 is the wife of accused No. 2. Accused No. 6 is the wife of accused No. 4. 3. Accused No. 1 was the plaintiff in the original suit No. 20 of 1972. The suit was for partition and separate possession of his (accused No. 1's) share in the pro...
Chandrappa Vs. Zilla Parishad
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1676; 1990(3)KarLJ38
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 25-9-1989 passed by the Chief Secretary, Zilla Parishad, Hassan in No. ZPH/Food/87-89-90. The petitioner has also sought for quashing the order dated 27-9-1989 bearing No. TPC/Food/CR/45/89-90 Annexure-C issued by the Block Development Officer, Arsikere. In addition to this, the petitioner has sought for quashing the show cause notice dated 25-9-1989 bearing No. ZPH/ Food/87-89-90 Annexure-D issued by the Chief Secretary, Zilla Parishad to the petitioner. He has also sought for issue of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to forbear from' taking any action against the petitioner pursuant to the report submitted by the third respondent pursuant to Annexure-D show cause notice.2. The petitioner is a retail dealer. He holds a retail dealers licence issued in Form-D under Clause (2) of the Karnataka Essential Commodities...
B.N. Chudamani Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant223; 1990(1)KarLJ103
ORDERIn this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs :(a) For production of the answer scripts of the petitioner in Mathematics, written in March 1989 in Register No. 345828 in second year P. U. C. examination in Centre No. 476 in Panchanahalli.(b) For verification of the answer sheets as to whether they are all scored off.(c) To have the answers valued by ignoring the scoring off made on the answers by crossed lines.(d) For declaration of the results of the petitioner after fresh valuation.2. I directed the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 to make available the answer scripts of the petitioner for perusal. The learned Government Advocate promptly responded by securing the answer scripts and I have perused the same. I am shocked to see lines recklessly drawn across the papers on every page as if the petitioner did not want the answers to be valued by the examiner. Except for very few pages of answers fetching small number...
R.P. Shavi Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-1989
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR413]; ILR1990KAR255; 1990(1)KarLJ70
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the Notice dated 4-11-1989 issued by respondent-1 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his nomination as the Chairman of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board should not be cancelled.2. The petitioner has sought for a certiorari for quashing the impugned notice and also for prohibiting the respondents from taking further action in pursuance of the impugned notice. He has also sought for a Mandamus to continue the petitioner till 9-8-1991 in office as Chairman of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board.3. The following are the material facts of the case:-The petitioner who is a Post Graduate Degree holder in Public Health Engineering had been working for 15 years in different capacities in the Public Works Department of the Government of Karnataka. By a Notification dated 8-8-1988 issued by the State Government, the petitioner who was serving as a Superintending Engineer in the Public Works Department was prom...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »