Karnataka Court November 1990 Judgments
Karnataka Food Packers Vs. Regional Director, Esi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR4364
ORDERS. Mohan, C.J. 1. The following three questions have been referred by the Division Bench for our opinion:-'(1) Whether the provisions of Section 68 of the Act are applicable to a case where the Corporation seeks to recover contributions for a period prior to the issuance of the notice calling upon the employer to register its institution and cover its employees with effect from an anterior date?(2) Whether the provisions of Section 68 of the Act are applicable to a case where the principal employer has failed to cover his employees and the Corporation had not extended any benefits or rendered any service to the employees for the period prior to the issuance of the notice calling upon the employer to cover its employees?(3) Whether the E.S.I. Corporation can demand payment of contribution without notifying the facilities available for the employees to the employer?' 2. The appellant -- Karnataka Food Packers -- has preferred this appeal against the order dated 29-5-1982 passed by t...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Mahendra Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1990
Reported in: [1991]192ITR351(KAR); [1991]192ITR351(Karn)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These revision petitions filed under section 55 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), are directed against the common order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Agricultural Income-tax Appeals Nos. 16 of 1984, 17 of 1984, 18 of 1984 and 19 of 1984. The said common order is dated October 11, 1985. 2. The facts relating to these revision petitions may be stated briefly and they are as follows : One A. R. Mahendra, Coffee Planter, Hosahalli Estate, the petitioner in all these petitions, filed the return of his income in Form No.3 prescribed under the Rules framed under the Act declaring a loss of Rs. 65,089 for the assessment year 1976-77 and the assessment for that year however, came to be made on August 13, 1977, by determining the net income at Rs. 19,603. Similarly, for the year 1977-78, he filed his return declaring a loss of Rs. 97,759 and the assessing authority made an assessment on Septem...
Tag this Judgment!Jayakumari and Dilharkumari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR99(KAR); [1991]189ITR99(Karn)
M.P. Chandrakantharaj Urs J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal), has referred these two cases under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), formulating as many as seven questions for our answer with a statement of the case. The questions referred are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the administration of the estate of the deceased is not complete and, therefore, the assessment has been rightly made on the executors under section 168(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the clear language used in section 168(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, one assessment made on the executors is sustainable in law ?' (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that both the instalment...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Industries Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, V Circle, Hubli and Anoth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1990
Reported in: [1991]82STC97(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, inter alia, he deals in handmade washing soaps. By an order of assessment dated 20th October, 1986, for the assessment period 1st April, 1984 to 31st March, 1985, the turnover relating to handmade soaps was assessed at 4 per cent as per the notification dated 31st March, 1984 and this notification is found at annexure B to the writ petition. The turnover of handmade soaps was Rs. 9,13,793.77. He had also other turnovers from soap stone-powder, rice bran oil and caustic soda. If the turnover of all these goods are taken into consideration, certainly his turnover would exceed Rs. 10 lakhs. After some time, the petitioner was notified under section 12-A of the Act by a notice dated 21st January, 1988. In the notice it was pointed out that the exemption notification was inapplicable to the petitioner because his total turnover exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs and the benefit of the not...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. Sudhir Surgicals and Allied Industries and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1990
Reported in: [1991]72CompCas555(Kar); ILR1991KAR3173
K.A. Swami, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated February 26, 1982, passed by the learned First Additional City Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, in O. S. No. 2023 of 1980 (old No. O. S. 204 of 1977). The appellant is the plaintiff and respondents Nos. 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 cent. per annum ;(ii) Rs. 69,714.13 with interest at 16 per cent per annum ; and(iii) Rs. 18,579.55 with interest at 18.5 per cent. per annum from the date of suit till decree and future interest at contract rate from the date of decree till realisation with full court costs.3. 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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Kannamma Vs. Deputy General Manager
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC421; 1991ACJ707; ILR1990KAR4300; 1990(3)KarLJ605
Venkatachala, J 1. The question, which has arisen for decision by this Full Bench on a reference by a Division Bench, is the following:'Whether, in a claim petition presented under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation for personal injury resulting from a motor accident as also compensation towards expenses incurred and towards loss of income etc., if the claimant dies during the pendency of the petition, his legal representative can come on record and continue the proceedings?'2. Circumstances, which led the Division Bench to refer the aforesaid question for decision by the Full Bench, need mention at the outset for a proper understanding of the question and a decision thereon.Out of the use of a passenger bus belonging to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('The KSRTC') on Siddaiah Road, Wilson Gardens, Bangalore City, an accident occurred on 25-4-1983. One Muniswamy, a pedestrian, who was involved in that accident, sustained personal (bodily...
Tag this Judgment!O.V. Shanthakumari Vs. Kokila
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ656; ILR1990KAR4324
Venkatachala, J.1. QUESTION, which has come up for decision by us, the Full Bench, by Reference Order dated 6-9-1990 of a Division Bench made under Section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, Is the following:'Whether the decision of this Court in H.T. Bhandary v. Muniyamma : ILR1985KAR2337 stands impliedly over-ruled in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumari v. Shanta Trivedi : [1989]1SCR761 and in Jyotsna Dey and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. [1987(1) ACJ 172]?'The Reference Order since discloses that the decision of this Court in M.F.A.No.708/1990 (GENERAL MANAGER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. KHATUJABEE ILR 1990 KAR 3240 was the cause for referring the said question for decision by the Full Bench, it will be useful to advert to it.2. The decision in Khatujabee's case is that of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in an appeal where the award made by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ('the Tribunal') in a fatal accident's action, ha...
Tag this Judgment!O.V. Shantha Kumari Vs. Kokila
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1990
Reported in: II(1991)ACC288
Venkatachala, J.1. Question, which has come up for decision by us, the Full Bench, by Reference Order dated 6-9-1990 of a Division Bench made under Section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is the following:Whether the decision of this Court in H.T. Bhandary v. Munryamma ILR 1985 (2) Karnataka 2337 stands impliedly over-ruled in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumari v. Shanta Trivedi : [1989]1SCR761 and in Jyotsna Dey and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. 1987 (1) ACJ 172 : (1987) 1 ACC 173?The Reference Order since discloses that the decision of this Court in M.F.A. No. 708/1990 (General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Khatujabee ILR 1990 Kar. 3240 : (1990) II ACC 572 was the cause for referring the said question for decision by the Full Bench, it will be useful to advert to it.2. The decision in Khatujabee's case is that of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in an appeal where the award made by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Kowdi and Co. Vs. R.V. Lakshmidevamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR4355
Murlidher Rao, J.1. Conflicting decisions on the interpretation of Section 20, Contempt of Courts Act and its effect on Article 215 of the Constitution of India, have given rise to the following question:-Whether the period of one year prescribed in Section 20, Contempt of Courts Act is applicable to contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution, in respect of Contempt of High Court?2. In HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA v. Y.K. SUBBANNA : ILR1989KAR3572 (Contempt of Court Case - Criminal - 8/84) a Bench consisting of DRVJ and KBNJ framed the following questions for consideration:-'(1) Whether the period of limitation prescribed by Section 20 of the Act is attracted to case of contempt of the High Court which is a Court of Record initiated under Article 215 of the Constitution?(2) What are the material dates for purposes for Section 20 of the Act?' 3. It was held that the period of limitation prescribed in Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act applies to proceedings initiated by...
Tag this Judgment!Gaffarsab Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2136
ORDER1. Petitioners in these cases are residents of Ankarvalli village in Chandragutti Hobli, Sorab Taluk. Cases are registered against them for offences under sections 24, 62, 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') and S. 379, I.P.C. and FIRs are sent against them by the Range Forest Officer, Sorab to the Court of the J.M.F.C. Sorab alleging that about 644 Kgs. of Sandalwood, 6 pieces of rosewood and 7 pieces of Deodar wood were found in a portion of the residential house of the petitioner in Cr.P. No. 1395/90; 66 Kgs. of Sandalwood were found in a portion of the residential house of petitioner in Cr.P. No. 1396/90; and 32 Kgs. of Sandalwood in two gunny bags were found in a portion of the house of the petitioner in Cr.P. No. 1430/99 when their houses were searched by the Forest staff on 15-9-90. It is also alleged that the petitioners had no requisite permit to possess the said forest produce. 2. In view of the FIRs sent against the petitioners for the abov...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »