Karnataka Court November 1990 Judgments
Baburao Vs. the Dist. Magistrate, Gulbarga and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ184; ILR1991KAR627; 1990(3)KarLJ413
ORDER1. The petitioner Baburao S/o. Sharanappa Pail is a resident of Shahbazar, Gulbarga. The averments made in the Revision Petition and the records summoned from the Office of the District Magistrate, Gulbarga, discloses that the petitioner required the assistance of this Court to set aside the externment order passed by the District Magistrate as illegal and violative of natural Justice. 2. The District Police Officer, Gulbarga, has sent a report dated 16-9-1986 to the District Magistrate/I respondent stating that the petitioner is continuously and actively indulging in a game called 'Matka' by himself and through his agents in Gulbarga town and therefore, during 1986, the police have filed the following cases where he has been convicted and sentenced to pay fine in the Court of the learned JMFC, Gulbarga : 1. Chowk P. S. Gulbarga Cr. No. 148/86 U/s. 78(A) ofK.P. Act. fined Rs. 60/- 2. -do- Cr. No. 156/86 -do- fined Rs. 50/- 3. -do- Cr. No. 159/86 -do- fined Rs. 60/- 4. -do- Cr. No....
Tag this Judgment!Applied Industrial Products Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1990
Reported in: 1991(32)ECC104; 1992(61)ELT364(Kar)
ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. In these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the show-cause notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, dated 11-11-1986 (Anx - 'O') proposing to levy differential duty on the petitioner on the value of the items of machinery and components got manufactured by the petitioner-company through sub-contractors and job-workers. 2. The first-petitioner is a private limited company, and the second petitioner is its Executive Director. The petitioner-company undertakes works of design, manufacturing, installation, erection and commissioning of cement-plants, coal-handling systems, etc., at the customers' site. 3. Though five writ petitions are filed, the challenge is only to the show-cause notice which is issued for recovery of the differential excise duty on the value of certain components and machinery got manufactured through job-workers between 1-4-1981 and 28-2-1986. There appears to be a clerical mistake in mentioning the date 28-...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Southern Steelmet and Alloys Ltd., Bangalore Vs. Karnataka Electr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant267; 1990(3)KarLJ424
ORDER1. The demand for payment of Rs. 6,25,018-35 P. under Annexure-D against the petitioner is the grievance for consideration in this writ petition.2. The petitioner has asked for quashing the impugned notice under Annexure-D dated 11-5-1983.3. Annexure-D makes interesting reading and it would be necessary and relevant to reproduce the same :--'KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD No.AEE,. ESD-3,. AAO/984-91 Office of theAssistant Executive Engineer,El. ESD-3 Sub-Dvn. 'B' Station,KEB M. g: Road, Bangalore-1Dt. : 11th May, 1983BY REGISTERED POST ACKNOWLEDGMENT DUEM/s. DECCAN STEEL LIMITED,No. 29/1, Kengal Hanumanthaiah Road,BANGALORE-560027 Sir, Sub : Inspection of H. T. Installation -- R.R.No. E4 HT-75 by M. T. Division Staff. Ref : i) E.E. (El.) M. T. D. letter No. 171-176 dt. 23-4-83;ii) S. P. Vigilance letter No. MT/175/ 83/ 84 dt. 4-5-1983. The Executive Engineer, (Elecl.) KEB M. T. Division and Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) KEB in their letters cited above have reported that, at t...
Tag this Judgment!D. Munnalal Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1990
Reported in: 1999(113)ELT37(Kar)
ORDER1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the prosecution launched against him as per Annexure-F as also by the refusal of the respondents to release 1571.500 gms of gold in the form of chains and penalty of Rs. 3,000/-. 2. The circumstances in which this matter arises are as follows : On 19-5-1987 certain gold articles were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The department on finding that the gold articles were primary gold effected seizure of the same under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and initiated adjudicatory proceedings. The Collector of Central Excise made an order directing confiscation of the said gold articles. On the matter being carried in appeal to the Customs, Excise & Cold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Madras, it examined the gold articles in the presence of the parties and their counsel and made the necessary observations in the course of the proceedings that they were fully polished and manufactured gold chains in running length. Only because they had to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Engineering Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1990
Reported in: 1991(33)ECC160; 1992(57)ELT12(Kar)
ORDER1. In W.P. No. 3113/1986 : Petitioner is M/s. Engineering Systems (P) Ltd. The petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the original order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, bearing No. C. No. V/68/15/16/84 C. 1 dated 15-11-1985 issued on 10-2-1986 of which the petitioner has been called upon to pay duty of excise of Rs. 66,800/- in terms of the provisions of Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in respect of the value of the goods manufactured by M/s. Press and Punch, Bangalore, and M/s. Mech and Gear Technical Services, Bangalore, to whom raw material was supplied by the petitioner and who in turn manufacture certain items which form necessary part of a conveyor system paying the labour charges to the said 3 manufacturers and the manufacturing process having been supervised by the persons appointed by the petitioner, namely the Engineering Systems (P) Ltd. The petitioner itself has a manufacturing unit outside the State of...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Electricity Board Vs. Topasa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR909; 1991(1)KarLJ313
Rama Jois, J.1. In this Writ Appeal the question of law which arises for consideration is:Whether a dispute arising out of under recording of consumption of electricity by an electrical meter, it is for the Board or it is for the consumer, to have the matter decided by the Electrical Inspector under Sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 19102. Brief facts of the case are these:The respondent is running a hotel at Hubli City. At his business premises two meters have been installed for the purpose of recording the quantum of electric power consumed. One meter is in respect of lighting and the other is for power and heating. On 4th August, 1987 the technical audit staff and the meter testing staff of the Electricity Board made a surprise inspection of the premises of the respondent. According to the appellants, both the meters were tested with the assistance of an equipment meant for the purpose and it was found that the power meter was under-recording to the extent...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Bettegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3186
K.A. Swami, J. 1. This Appeal by the plaintiff - Life Insurance Corporation of India is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 23rd February 1983 passed by the learned 9th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Original Suit No. 7903/1980. 2. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 88,858-02 by sale of the mortgaged property. The property mortgaged is described in the Schedule to the plaint. It is a residential site with building bearing No. 177, West of Chord Road, Second Stage, Bangalore. For the purpose of construction of a house on the aforesaid site the defendants raised a loan of Rs. 65,000/- from the plaintiff. Under the Mortgage Deed 30 half yearly instalments were granted to the defendants for payment of the amount of Rs. 65,000/- advanced on mortgage. According to the case of the plaintiff, the defendants failed to pay the instalment from the beginning. The first instalment became due on 27-2-1975 and the second instalment became due on 27-8-1975. The defe...
Tag this Judgment!Engineering Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. Additional Collector of Central Excis ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1990
Reported in: 1991(36)LC508(Karnataka)
ORDER1. In W.P. No. 3113/1986: Petitioner is M/s. Engineering Systems (P) Ltd. The petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the original order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, bearing No. C. No. V/68/15/16/84 C.I dated 15.11.1985 issued on 102.1986 by which the petitioner has been called upon to pay duty of excise of Rs. 66.800/- in terms of the provisions of Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in respect of the value of the goods manufactured by M/s. Press and Punch, Bangalore, and M/s. Mech and Gear Technical Services, Bangalore, to whom raw material was supplied by the petitioner and who in turn manufacture certain items which form necessary part of a conveyor system paying the labour charges to the said 3 manufacturers and the manufacturing process having been supervised by the persons appointed by the petitioner, namely the Engineering Systems (P) Ltd. The petitioner itself has a manufacturing unit outside the State of Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank, Ulsoor Branch, Bangalore Vs. M/S. Sudhir Surgicals and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Kant146
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dt. 26-2-1982 passed by the learned I Addl: City. Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore in O.S. No. 2023/1980 (old No. O.S. 204/77). The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents 1 to 4 are defendants Nos. 1 to 4 before the trial Court. In this judgment, the appellant will be referred to as the plaintiff and the respondents as defendants.2. The appellant filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of the following sums:i) Rs. 81,897/- with interest at 16% per annum;ii)Rs. 69,714-13 with interest at 16% per annum; andiii) Rs. 18,579-55 with interest at 18 1/2% per annum from the date of suit till decree andfuture interest at contract rate from the date of decree till realisation with full court costs.The plaintiff also prayed for the sale of hypothecated goods described in Schedules A and B for the realisation of the decretal dues and in the event, the sale proceeds of the hypothecated goods are found insuffi...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Subbaiah Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR440(KAR); [1991]190ITR440(Karn)
M.P. Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.1. This is a revision petition under section 55 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), preferred by the assessee. The assessee is a coffee planter. He filed the return for the assessment year 1976-77 (accounting period April 1, 1975 to March 31, 1976) disclosing his status as an association of persons. The association in question consisted of the assessee, P.M. Subbaiah, his two brothers and two sisters, all having attained the age of majority, undisputedly, prior to that assessment year, the family was being assessed as a Hindu undivided family. After the death of the karta of the Hindu undivided family which was some years before the assessment year 1976-77, an advocate from Madikeri represented the assessee before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Virajpet. The members of the family had entered into an agreement dated April 2, 1975, by which they had severed their status as members of the Hindu undiv...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »