Karnataka Court October 1990 Judgments
Shankaranarayana Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Official Liquidator, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: [1992]74CompCas290(Kar)
K.J. Shetty, J.1. Petition No. 10 of 1990 by Shankaranarayana Steel and Polymer Concrete Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'transferor company') is for sanctioning a scheme of amalgamation and merger with Shankaranarayana Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'transferee-company'). Petition No. 9 of 1990 is by the transferee-company for sanctioning the scheme of the aforesaid amalgamation and merger.2. Since common questions of law and fact arise in these two petitions, they have been taken together and heard and are being disposed of by a common order.3. Shankaranarayana Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd., the transferee-company, was incorporated on April 19, 1973, under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, as a company limited by shares, its accounting year being April 1, to March 31, following. The latest balance-sheet and profit and loss account for the year ending March 31, 1989, has shown huge profits. The object of the transferee-company is mainly to carry on the business of...
Tag this Judgment!Siddhagiri Vs. Entry Tax Officer, Ii Circle, Commercial Tax Department ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)KarLJ112; [1993]89STC221(Kar)
M. Rama Jois, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned the legality of the levy of entry tax in respect of goods brought within a local area and re-exported after sale to places outside the local area, under section 3 of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale therein Act, 1979 ('the Act' for short). 2. The brief facts of the case are these : The State Legislature enacted the Act and came into force on October 1, 1980. Section 3 of the Act is the charging section. It reads : '3. Levy of tax. - There shall be levied and collected a tax on entry of the scheduled goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein at such rate not exceeding two per cent. ad valorem and from such date as may be specified, whether prospectively or retrospectively, by the State Government and different dates and different rates may be specified for different local areas.' According to the above section, a tax at the rate not exceedin...
Tag this Judgment!The Modern Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-1990
Reported in: 1991(32)ECC250; 1991LC458(Karnataka); 1991(55)ELT148(Kar)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of vegetable products. By virtue of Notification 27/87 dated 1-3-1987 the petitioner was entitled to set off on fixed vegetable oils used in the manufacture of vegetable products. The fixed vegetable oils on which set off is allowed are mentioned in the table annexed to the notification. On the basis of the said notification the petitioner earns a cash credit equivalent to Rs. 1,000/- on each tone of vegetable product cleared from the factory. Any amount payable in excess of Rs. 1,000/- is debited to his PLA account and thus he earns a credit of Rs. 1,000/- per tonne and this credit earned by the petitioner on each tonne of vegetable product cleared, is credited to Account RG 23B Part II. 2. Chapter AAA was inserted in the Central Excise Rules with effect from 1-3-1987 and special Rules were framed to implement the scheme and the notifications issued under Rule 57K. Rules 57K to 57P prescribe the procedure to be observed by the manufacturer to e...
Tag this Judgment!Champion Industries Vs. Pukhraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1222
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed by the tenant in respect of a non-residential premises situated in a building belonging to the respondents herein. The respondents filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a)(h) and (i) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (shortly called 'the Act'). It is not necessary to refer to the claim under Clauses (a) and (i) as the same was not urged before me. In fact, the trial Court also has rejected the claim of the respondents under Clauses (a) and (i) and the respondents have not challenged the same. The respondents sought eviction under Clause (h) of the Act on the ground that they have been residing in a rented premises at Murugesh Mudaliar lane; they have been doing business in clothes, watches and spare parts at Devatha Market, Chickpet and at another shop. Both the business premises are rented premises. There are 14 members in the family of the respondents. The original first petitioner in the trial Court, Pukhraj...
Tag this Judgment!Shantha Bai Prabhu Vs. Shahul Hameed
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR4407
Murlidher Rao, J.1. The appellants, respondents 2 and 3 are the legal representatives of the original defendant Matti Ranganatha Prabhu, in O.S.No.9/1981 on the file of the Civil Judge at Mangalore. First respondent is the plaintiff.2. Plaintiff and the late Matti Ranganatha Prabhu entered into an agreement on 2-9-1980 under which the deceased agreed to sell suit schedule property to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,09,000/-; on the date of agreement Rs. 30,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, leaving a balance of Rs. 70,000/-. It is averred by the plaintiff that on 29-9-1980, he was put in possession of item No.2 of the 'A' schedule property in part performance of the contract. Plaintiff issued a notice on 1-10-1980 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. This was followed by yet another notice on 24-11-1980. Regarding his readiness to perform his part of the contract plaintiff stated thus: in his plaint:'7. That the plaintiff approached the defendant several times an...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. Printers All (P.) Ltd. and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-1990
Reported in: [1991]70CompCas748(Kar)
Chandrakantiraj Urs, J.1. This petition under section 433(c) and (e) read with section 439(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is presented by the petitioner- Syndicate Bank, Manipal, having one of its branch offices at Bangalore. The petitioner will be referred to in the course of this order as teh 'bank'.2. The bank has prayed for the winding up of the first respondent- company, Printers all (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). Respondents Nos. 2,3,4,5 and 6 are the directors of the company. The company is duly incorporated under the Companies Act,1956, on August 10, 1966, as a private company with limited liability. The main objects of the company are as follows:'(a) To acquire and take over the assets and liabilities of the partnership firm 'Printers all' carrying on business at Bangalore as on June 16, 1966, and to carry on the business of stationers, printers, lithographers, stereotypers, photographic printers, photolithographers,...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Yalagi Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-1990
Reported in: [1992]85STC145(Kar)
K.B. Navadgi, J. 1. In this appeal under section 24 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), M/s. A. S. Yalagi, a firm represented by its partner, the assessee has challenged the order dated November 10, 1986, in SMR 80/85-86 made by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, Bangalore, in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under section 22-A of the Act. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. We have examined the record. 3. Briefly stated, the facts relevant to dispose of the appeal are these : The assessee is a registered dealer under the Act. For the assessment year from November 16, 1982 to November 4, 1983, it filed the monthly returns along with the payment of tax in respect of its turnover relating to groundnuts and peanuts. It also filed the return for the aforesaid assessment period. Before the assessment was completed, having come to know of the amendment effected to entr...
Tag this Judgment!G.S. Sunagar and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-1990
Reported in: [1991]82STC288(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated December 19, 1986, of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the order are as follows : The assessee filed the return for the assessment year 1981-82 showing a turnover of Rs. 3,42,304 comprised in the sale of lime and charcoal. He claimed exemption in respect of sale turnover relating to charcoal in a sum of Rs. 12,500. As to the trading account reflected from his books of account, the return came to be accepted and the exemption claimed also came to be allowed. But the assessing authority treated the sale of lime as sale of chemical falling under entry 79 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short), instead of taxing the same under section 5(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act in accordance with the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, on the query of the Belgaum Chamber ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramana Subraya Hegde Vs. Registrar, Karnataka University
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR4118; 1991(1)KarLJ18
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. This is a petition for Judicial Review of an order passed by the Karnataka University, Dharwad vide Annexure 'D' appointing 4th respondent herein to the post of Reader in Post Graduate Gandhian Studies in preference to the petitioner.2. The case of the petitioner is that he has been working as a temporary lecturer in the Department of Gandhian Studies, Karnataka University, Dharwad since January 1979 and that he has also been in charge of the Department since April 1982. The Karnataka University invited applications to fill up certain posts among one of which was the post of a Reader in Gandhian Studies. According to the petitioner, he satisfies all the qualifications prescribed for the appointment of the petitioner as a Reader in the University. Special protection was given to a member of 'Backward Special Group' subject to fulfilment of certain qualifications. According to the advertisement, a person belonging to the 'Backward Special Group' should have a consi...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadish Vs. Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR4110; 1991(1)KarLJ26
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. The petitioners styling themselves as rate-payers and residents of V Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, have brought this action for a declaration that the allotment of civic amenity site No. 19, V Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, in favour of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore by the Bangalore Development Authority as illegal and void and for prohibiting respondent-1 from altering the character of the said site and also for a declaration that the said site is a civic amenity site intended as a play-ground and a park.2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:Site No. 19 is situate between 10th and 11th Main Road, Jayanagar V Block, measuring 91 metres towards East to West and 298 metres towards North to South out of which the existing park area extending upto storm water drain is of an extent of 91 x 165 metres. The remaining portion measures 91 x 134 metres inclusive of storm water drain. It is in the latter portion that there is a proposal for construction of a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »