Karnataka Court December 1989 Judgments
Pramod Isloor Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR278; 1990(1)KarLJ176
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. This habeas corpus writ petition was argued on behalf of the writ petitioner, a convict serving sentence of life imprisonment in the bangalore central prison, by shri b.t. parthasarathy a senior counsel, readily responding to our request made to him in that regard considering the importance of the claims in the writ petition that section 433 a of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (for short 'the code'), which has come into force on 18-12-1978, requiring that a person undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life imposed on conviction for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 of the code into one of imprisonment for life, shall not be released from prison unless he had served atleast fourteen years of imprisonment, was not attracted to the writ petitioner's case and that the superintendent of bangalore central prison should be directed to exami...
Tag this Judgment!Shivalingappa Murigeppa Kadi Vs. Shivayogappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR3069
Ramakrishna, J1. The Division Bench by an order made on 18-7-1989, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the Full Bench:-'Whether an application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 is maintainable before the District Judge against an order of the Charity Commissioner made in exercise of power of revision under Section 70A of the Act setting aside the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner made under Section 18 read with Section 19 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that after setting aside the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, the matter has been remitted to the Assistant Charity Commissioner for fresh enquiry.'2. A few facts that are necessary for answering the question referred to the Full Bench are as follows:A temple called 'Jaligidada Basaveswara Devalaya' situates in the town of Muddebihal of the District of Bijapur. On an application filed by one S.M. Kadi of Muddebihal along with a few others on 31-5-1952 under Section...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Chamundeswari Industries
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1989
Reported in: [1992]84STC518(Kar)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This revision petition is directed against an order made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal holding that parched rice and puffed rice are rice and therefore do not attract purchase tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, while the assessing authority and the appellate authority had held against the dealer. 2. The entries with which we are concerned are entry 138 of the Second Schedule and entry 9 of the Fourth Schedule to the Act. They read as under : '138. Flour and husks of pulses, atta, maida, soji and bran of wheat; parched rice, beaten rice, soji and rice and rice bran; soji, maida, atta, grits, flakes and bran or maize.' '9. Cereals, that is to say, paddy and rice, wheat, jowar or milo, bajra, maize, ragi, kodon, kutki and barley.' The contention advanced on behalf of the dealer is that the 'rice' referred to in the Fourth Schedule at entry 9 takes within its sweep the parched rice and the puffed rice and relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in...
Tag this Judgment!Kanaka Raj Mehta Vs. K.V. Shivakumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR42
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this complaint presented under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act for short) in which the complainant complains that respondent No. 1 has failed to comply with the directions issued to him by this Court in W.P. No. 33040/1982, DR. H.L. Thimme gowda v. Deputy Commissioner - DD 8-5-1986, in view of the preliminary objections raised by the 1st respondent, the following question of law arises for consideration:'Whether the period of limitation of one year for initiating proceedings for contempt of Court from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed, prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 applies to the exercise of power conferred on this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to punish for contempt of itself?'2. The facts of the case, in brief are these:- There have been number of Writ Petitions including public interest pet...
Tag this Judgment!Subash Rukmayya Guttedar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1823
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. As common questions of law and fact arise in these petitions, the same are heard together. The respondents have also filed the statement of objections.2. The only question that arises for consideration in these petitions is as to whether the State Government is entitled to demand and recover royalty in respect of a minor mineral permitted by the State Government to be removed by the petitioners for using the same in execution of the work entrusted to them by the State Government under the contract entered into by their with the State Government.3. Royalty is demanded from the petitioners at the rates specified in the schedule to the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 as amended by the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). These Rules are made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Hind Nippon Rural Industries Pvt. Ltd. (No. 1) Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-1989
Reported in: [1993]201ITR581(KAR); [1993]201ITR581(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The following question has been referred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not an industrial company with in the meaning of section 2 (9) (c) of the Finance Act, 1976 ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1976-77. According to the assessee it is a company which carries on the business of manufacturing and sale of wooden packing boxes, granite slabs, sinks and tombstones and grinding stones and export of granite blocks. The major components of the sales is sale of granite blocks. These are stated to be manufactured by it by employing a contractor, who is to deliver the granite blocks at the office of the assessee at Madras, and it has appointed supervisors to check the specification of the granite blocks manufactured by the contractor. In addition to checking up the product, the assessee's own staff made final adjustments of thes...
Tag this Judgment!Mysodet (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-1989
Reported in: (1990)82CTR(Kar)247; [1990]182ITR235(KAR); [1990]182ITR235(Karn); 1990(3)KarLJ31; [1990]51TAXMAN175(Kar)
Rajendra Babu, J.1. This is a reference under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the question referred for our opinion is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were applicable to the instant case for the assessment year 1975-76 ' 2. The facts leading to this reference are as follows : A sum of Rs. 1,23,053 was paid to the managing director of the assesses company should be treated as dividend under section 2(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). If that amount is taken as a divided distributed, then there will hardly be a balance of Rs. 2,800 to be distributed and that is too small an amount compared to the paid-up capital of the assesses company and, as such, the provisions of section 104 of the Act are inapplicable. 3. The assessee is a trading company in which the public are not substantially interested. For the assessment year 1975-...
Tag this Judgment!Parveen Industries Vs. Banawar Singh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-1989
Reported in: II(1990)ACC108; 1990ACJ980; [1990(60)FLR745]; ILR1990KAR605; 1990(3)KarLJ197; (1990)IILLJ412Kant
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. This Appeal has come up for orders on the office objection regarding the maintainability of this appeal. The brief facts of the case which are relevant to decide the office objection are as follows :- The respondent workman filed an application before the Workmen's Compensation Authority claiming compensation in respect of employment injury. The said application was allowed by the order of the authority dated 25th August 1987. On 18th September 1987 the Appellants filed an application under Rule 41 (wrongly referred to as Rule 42) of the Workmen's Compensation Rules praying for setting aside the order dated 25th August 1987 on the ground that no notice had been served on the Appellants and therefore the order passed ex parte against them should be set aside. This application was rejected by the order dated 4th August 1989 made by the authority upholding the objection of the workman that notice had been served on the Appellants and there was no justification for the...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Vijay Saw Mill and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-1989
Reported in: [1991]80STC192(Kar)
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. In these three matters, the question that falls for consideration is whether rollers and flanges sold by the dealers in question fall under entry 20 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The assessing officer, in the case of the dealer in S.T.R.P. No. 61 of 1985, for the period from October 22, 1979 to November 7, 1980, assessed the turnover of sales of the rollers and flanges as accessories for machinery falling under entry 20 of the Second Schedule to the Act and brought to tax at 8 per cent. Aggrieved by that order, the dealer filed an appeal and thereafter second appeal to the Tribunal, of course, unsuccessfully. 3. In S.T.A. No. 9 of 1985 for the assessment period between April 15, 1979 to December 31, 1979, the assessing officer, brought the turnover of sales of rollers and flanges under entry 20 of the Second Schedule to the Act. On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Dongare and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1989
Reported in: [1990]77STC462(Kar)
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In all these cases the question pertains to the turnover of laminated sheets which according to the petitioners fall within entry 110 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act as it stood during the relevant period, while the revising authority held that the laminated sheets come under entry 78 in the course of exercising its revisional power. The Tribunal upheld the view taken by the revising authority. 2. It is not necessary to state elaborately the other facts except to extract the 2 entries which have come up for consideration. Entry No. 78 : Cement and asbestos sheets, straw boards,hardboards, plywood and the like .... 10%Entry No. 110 : Plastic sheets and all articles madeof plastic polythene or polyvinylchloride material .... 8%3. The Tribunal as well as the revising authority approached the problem by applying the test of user and held that laminated sheets were put to similar uses for which hardboards and plywoods were used. The dealers cha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »