Karnataka Court February 1989 Judgments
S.V. Bagi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Appeals, Bel ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: [1989]74STC51(Kar)
1. In this writ petition in which the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belgaum, the following question of law arises for consideration : Whether lisa sugar is declared goods under section 14(viii) of the Central Sales Tax Act ('C.S.T. Act' for short), and if answer to the said question is in the affirmative, whether there is authority for levy of tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ('the State Act' for short). 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The assessee is a general merchant. Among various other commodities in which he deals, lisa sugar is one of them. According to the petitioner, it is only an allotropy of sugar. Sugar is powdered by a mechanical process and thereafter a small percentage of glucose and water is added to it and dried. It contains 99 per cent of sucrose. Thus, lisa sugar is only powdered soft sugar and in vernacular it is called 'b...
Tag this Judgment!Kuruvalli Shivalingappa Vs. Y.S.M. Basaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1281; 1989(2)KarLJ28
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The short question that falls for determination in disposing of this I.A. which is for staying the operation of the Judgment and decree under appeal is, whether the appellant who is now in possession of the house property, described as suit Schedule II item, is his self acquired property and therefore should be taken out of the purview of the decree.2. It is submitted that the said item No. 11 of the suit Schedule property was the property of the partnership firm of which the appellant, husband of the first defendant, 2nd defendant and other members of the family were partners and on the dissolution of the firm as evidenced by Ex.D-2, the said item No. 2 of the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of the appellant's father who was one of the original partners.3. In support of the above proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of NARAYANAPPA v. BHASKARA KRISHNAPPA : [1966]3SCR400 . In the said decision, ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Nizaiulla Vs. Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Ksrtc
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR124]; ILR1989KAR2249; 1989(2)KarLJ389
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:'(i) Issue Writ of certiorari quashing the order No. KST:CO:DEL:D6/274, dated 6-6-1986, as per Annexure-A, in so far as it relates to denial of backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits;(ii) Declare that the order of the respondents is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;(iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits; and also to consider the case in terms of Circular dated 18-8-1986.(iv) Issue any appropriate Writ or Order or direction in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs, to meet the ends of justice,2. However during the course of argument, it Is submitted by Sri Lakshminarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the p...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Bhagavan Singh and Others Vs. Smt. Sharada Bai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant222
ORDER1. These two petitions are clubbed together and disposed of by the following order at the stage of admission after notice.2. The facts which are required to be stated are as follows :-- One Sharada Bai instituted 0. S. No. 24 of 1982 in the court of the Munsiff at Sira seeking declaration of title to suit schedule properties against the revision petitioners who are defendants in the said suit. Thereafter, one Nagaraj, son of Khem Singh filed 0. S. No. 44 of 1987 impleading Sharada Bai, plaintiff in O.S.No. 24 of 1982 and the defendants therein as defendants seeking declaration of his title to the same suit schedule property, namely the suit schedule property of O. S. No. 24 of 1982.3. Sharada Bai, plaintiff in O. S.No. 24 of 1982, made an application in LA. 15 in that suit as well as I.A. II in O.S.No. 44 of 1987 seeking an order of the court clubbing the two suits together and recording common evidence and disposing of the same in accordance with law. They have come to be allowed...
Tag this Judgment!M.D. Nanjundaswamy Vs. Basic Education Society (R) and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant245; 1990(1)KarLJ173
ORDER1. Unfortunately this matter has been posted once again before me on account of what was recorded on 8-2-1989, When I proceeded for orders, learned Counsel for the petitioner requested for an adjournment. Therefore, it was adjourned by one week. Today, I have heard Mr. Baliga once again in the light of the noting made by my learned brother PKSJ., on Feb. 16, 1989.2. The questions which are raised before this Court are :--1. Whether the order under revision is bereft of reason? 2. If it is not bereft of reasons whether the reasons given may be said to be sustainable reasons legally? 3. The brief facts are these :--Plaintiff filed the suit inter alia seeking a permanent injunction restraining defendant and also made an application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, C.P.C. for temporary injunction. It is asserted that no temporary injunction was granted ex parte. Notices appear to have been directed and parties have entered appearance and respondents even filed their written statement. I.A. I...
Tag this Judgment!C. Channabasappa Vs. Davangere Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Ru ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant290; 1989(2)KarLJ277
ORDER1. The petitioner who was elected as the President of the 1st respondent/ Primary Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. (in short the Bank) has questioned the correctness of the notice issued by the Bank dt. 24-12-1988 (produced as Ann-H in the writ petition) as also the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chitradurga, which is produced as Ann. J in the writ petition on the ground that they are violative of the provisions of S. 28A(4) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (in short the Act) read with the proviso to R. 13 of theKarnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (in short the Rules). The facts are not in serious controversy, but the application of these facts to the relevant provisions of the Act has caused some difficulty in deciding this matter.2. The petitioner was elected as the President of the Bank in the year 1987 and his term of office in the ordinary course expired on 30-9-1988. Likewise the term of members of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Stumpp, Scheule and Somappa Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR38]; ILR1989KAR861; 1989(1)KarLJ233; (1989)IILLJ4Kant
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. These Appeals arise out of an order of the learned single Judge of this Court (1985-II-LLJ-543) allowing the writ petitions filed - one by the Company and another by a shareholder of the Company. Two of the appeals are by the workmen, two by the State Government and two by the Union of India. The learned single Judge declared that Section 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') offended Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and directed respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petitions not to enforce the provisions of Section 25O of the Act against the petitioners therein. 2. The facts need not be narrated in detail. The Company sought permission of the State Government under Section 25O of the Act to close one of its units, as it was found to be uneconomical, and the situation reached a point that it had to be closed down. But the State Government rejected the application. In the writ petitions the validity of the order as well as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Thungabhadra Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR897
Shivashankar Bhat, J1. These two appeals are filed against the order of a learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition filed by the appellant in W.A.No. 1938/84 (who will hereinafter be referred as 'the Company'). The other appeal (W.A. No. 143/85) is by the State of Karnataka.2. In the Writ Petition, the Company sought for the quashing of the two orders of the Special Deputy Commissioner (Annexures J and K) whereby the Special Deputy Commissioner in the exercise of his power under Section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, called 'the Act') declared an extent of 2685 acres 19 guntas of land held by the Company to be surplus lands under Section 79B of the Act and ordered the same to be resumed to Government. The Special Deputy Commissioner held that the Company was barred from holding any agricultural land under Section 79B of the Act, except 50 acres of agricultural land for seed and research purpose under Section 63(8) of the Act. The Company was given the option to...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Balaji Singh Vs. Lakshmamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR823
ORDER1. In this petition under S. 482 of the Criminal P.C., hereinafter referred to as the 'Code', the petitioner has requested to quash the proceedings in C.Msc. No. 836/87 on the file of the Additional Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, and also to quash the order dt. 6-8-1988 made by the Additional Judge, Family Court (the Court for short) in C. Misc. No. 836 of 1987. The Office has raised objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition under S. 482 of the Code. 2. The record is perused. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of maintainability of the petition. 4. The relevant facts to be noticed and referred to are these : Smt. Lakshmamma, the respondent herein, has filed a petition under S. 125 of the Code with a prayer to direct the petitioner herein to pay a monthly maintenance allowance. In the said proceedings, the respondent filed an application under S. 125 of the Code read with S. 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (the Act for short) or...
Tag this Judgment!P. Mabusab and Sons Vs. T. Nagendrappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1022; 1989(2)KarLJ48
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. This is a plaintiff's Revision Petition. Suit was filed, originally, describing the plaintiff as 'P. Mabusab & Sons., firm represented by Its partner P. Mabusab.' A similar statement was made at para-1 of the plaint. The suit claim is for the recovery of certain sum of money, allegedly borrowed by the defendant, evidenced by a promissory note.2. Actually, the firm had been dissolved on 21-10-1979, and Mabusab continued the business as the sole proprietor, under the trade name 'P. Mabusab & Sons.' Suit was filed in the year 1982. Realising the mistake committed in the description of the plaint, an application I.A. No. IV was filed in December, 1985 in the lower Court for the amendment of the plaint, so as to describe the plaintiff as 'P. Mabusab & Sons., by its proprietor, P. Mabusab'. The explanation of the applicant was that, P. Mabusab & Sons. was the trade name, having a 'good will' and therefore, he was carrying on the business in the said name and that...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »