Karnataka Court October 1990 Judgments

Prof. S. Dhawan Vs. Sri Dattaguru Sadananda Spiritual and Meditation C ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR4126

ORDERMohan, C.J.1. This case raises interesting questions where force of law is tested.2, With this prefatory remark, we proceed to analyse the events which have led to the complaint. The complainants before us along with some other residents of the area in question filed W.P.No. 20541 of 1984 before this Court. In the Writ Petition, the validity of the resolution of the Bangalore Development Authority dated 1-12-1983 passed at its 29th meeting was questioned. That resolution purported to allot a Civic Amenity site situate in Chakravarthi Lay-out in favour of Sri Dattaguru Sandananda Spiritual and Meditation Centre represented by its Managing Trustee, respondent-1 herein (respondent-3 in the Writ Petition). The object of the allotment was to construct a building purporting for prayer and meditation. Inter-alia the petitioners in the Writ Petition also sought a declaration that the sanction accorded by the B.D.A. on 11-10-1984 for the construction of the building on the aforesaid site w...

Basappa Sangappa Unki Vs. Siddappa Bhimappa Hullyal

Court: Karnataka

B.P. Singh, J. 1. The sole question which arises for determination in this appeal is;-'Whether the widows of Sangappa, namely Shivalingawwa and Shivawwa became absolute owners of the property bequeathed to them under a Will dated 10-5-1960 by their husband Sangappa providing for them only a life estate, having regard to the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.'2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Sangappa was the owner of the suit properties. He had two wives viz., Shivalingawwa and Shivawwa. He had no son. He had brought up the plaintiff/appellant as his son. It is an admitted fact that though he bestowed upon the plaintiff/appellant the love and affection of a son, the plaintiff/appellant was never adopted as a son. However, having regard to the love and affection which Sangappa and his two wives had for the plaintiff/appellant, a Will was executed on the 10th of May 1960 by Sangappa in respect of the suit properties, and that Will has also been signed by his...

Mysore Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1991(32)ECC99; 1992(61)ELT252(Kar); 1991(1)KarLJ132

ORDERK.B. Navadgi, J.1. The short question that falls for consideration in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is : Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim exemption from payment of additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (the Act of 1975 for short). 2. Few facts to be noticed and adverted to decide the question are these. The Mysore Petrochemicals Ltd., petitioner-1, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-Company is a Joint Stock Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at 26/11, Sankey Road, Bangalore. Petitioner-2 is the Secretary and Shareholder of petitioner-Company. 3. The petitioner-Company manufactures among other thing phthalic anhydride (finished product for short). It requires raw material called 'orthorxylene' to manufacture finished product. The raw material is manufactured in India by Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited, Baroda (I.P.C.L. for short). The manufact...

Javare Gowda Vs. Regional Transport Officer

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1991KAR36; 1991(1)KarLJ126

Rama Jois, J. 1. In this Petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, sought for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to grant the application made by him for alteration of the seating capacity of his Motor Vehicle under Section 32(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the Act' for short).2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:The petitioner is the owner of a Taxi Gab bearing Registration No. KLM. 3315, which is a diesel trucker. The seating capacity of the taxi cab has been 6+1. He applied to the Regional Transport Officer, Mandya, under Section 32(1) of the Act praying for alteration of the seating capacity of the vehicle from 6+1 to 5+1. The application was rejected as per Endorsement dated 25-8-1987. The endorsement reads;'Sri Javaregowda registered owner of Motor Vehicle No. KLM 3315 is hereby informed that his application for alteration of seating capacity 6+1 to 5+1 is rejected on the following ground; 1. The vehicle KLM 3315 is adopted to carry more nu...

Gopalappa Vs. Secretary to Government of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1991KAR42; 1990(3)KarLJ351

ORDERRama Jois, J. 1. A common question of law namely as to whether the petitioner acquired any right pursuant to an agreement of sale executed by the erstwhile holders of Village Offices in respect of an erstwhile service inam land in favour of each of the petitioners after the land stood vested in the State under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act 1963 arises for consideration in these Writ Petitions.2. The facts of the cases are these: The contesting respondents in each of these petitions were holders of inferior Village Offices under the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908. Certain service inam lands were attached as emoluments to the concerned village offices. The Mysore Village Offices Act 1908 was repealed by the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. Section 4 of the Act abolished all the hereditary village offices and also extinguished all the emoluments attached thereto. The Act was given effect to with effect from 1-2-1963. Notwithstanding the...

Bhagi Hengsu Vs. Rocky Lasrado

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1991KAR2375; 1990(3)KarLJ575

Mohan, C.J.1. This case having been set down for being spoken to to-day, we heard learned Counsel on both sides and the Order made 20-7-1990 is recalled.2. The property forming part of this Appeal originally belonged to one Maire Hengsu. She died leaving behind Chandu. The said Chandu executed a testament in favour of Rama Maistry, a person belonging to Scheduled Caste, who is the husband of the appellant. After the death of Chandu, Rama Maistry became entitled to the property, that was numbered as Survey No. 181-3. In the record of rights, name of Rama Maistry was shown as person in possession of the property.3. The said Rama Maistry sold property to one Sunder Kunder under registered Sale Deed dated 27-10-1975. Thereafter, the property was sold in favour of the first respondent. On a complaint by the appellant to the Assistant Commissioner, he instituted proceedings under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereina...

M.M. Appaiya and M.A. Ganapathy Firm, Coffee Lands Limited, Veerarajen ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1991]188ITR793(KAR); [1991]188ITR793(Karn); 1990(3)KarLJ546

M.P. Chandrakantharaj Urs J.1. We propose to dispose of all these writ petitions which are filed challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment of section 18(1) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act (as amended by the Karnataka Act No. 14 of 1983) replacing the earlier Ordinance. 2. We may, at the outset, state that there are two kinds of petitioners before us, viz., those who are assessed as individuals under the Act and companies or firms which are assessed as such, but their grievance is common. 3. Section 18(1) stood as follows before amendment : 'Every person whose total agricultural income during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to agricultural income-tax shall furnish to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer so as to reach him before the first June every year a return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, setting forth his total agricultural income during the previous year.' 4. By the amendment of sectio...

State of Karnataka Vs. M.S.S. Narayan

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR4190; 1990(2)KarLJ506

ORDERRamachandriah, J.1. State of Karnataka has filed a petition under Section 432 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order of the Special Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (for short 'the Special Judge') dated 20-7-1983 in C.C. No. 9/1976 dismissing the application - I.A.58 filed by the prosecution under Section 309 Cr.P.C. praying for adjournment of the case to the month of October 1988 for trial.2. Respondents 1 to 3 are accused Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in C.C.9/1976. Reference will hereinafter be made to the parties to this petition with reference to the positions they occupy in the Criminal Case in the trial Court.3. The relevant facts which are necessary to be stated for consideration of the prayer of the petitioner-complainant are as under:First respondent-first accused was the Branch Manager of the Canara Bank, Devarajeevanahalli Branch, Bangalore, at the relevant time. Respondents 2 and 3 - accused Nos. 2 and 3 are partners of a firm called M/s, P.C. Srinivasamurthy & Co., carryi...

Kela Brothers Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1992]86STC405(Kar)

M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. Admittedly, the documents required in terms of sub-section (2) of section 28-A read with rule 23-D of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957, were not carried by the transporter as a result of which the penalty came to be levied. Before us, the only question canvassed by learned counsel Sri Bhat is that they were produced subsequently at the time of hearing after notice to the consignor and, therefore, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Sree Hajee Ahmed Bava v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 60 STC 328, he drew our attention to the ruling of the Division Bench in paragraph 34, the penalty was uncalled for. We are unable to see such a proposition. The passage in para 38 is as follows : 'The substituted provisions provide for opportunity to the person aggrieved to show cause or to produce the documents, and the power to levy penalty is purported to be exercised only in cases where the person concerned fails to furnish sufficient caus...

Solidaire India Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1994]92STC278(Kar)

S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of television sets, components, parts and accessories thereof having its factory at Madras. The television sets are sold under the brand-name 'Solidaire'. The petitioner is a dealer registered in the State of Karnataka under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). 2. The notification dated June 20, 1986, issued by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred under section 8-A of the Act (annexure B) is challenged in this writ petition. The said notification reads thus : 'In exercise of the powers conferred by section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) the Government of Karnataka hereby reduces with immediate effect, the rate of tax payable by a dealer under section 5 of the Act, on television sets and components manufactured in Karnataka to two per cent.' 3. The manufacturers of television sets outside the State had to pay tax under entry 53-A of the Second Schedule at 10 per ce...