Karnataka Court November 1990 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Narendra M. Mehta Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-1990
Reported in: 1991(32)ECC254; 1992(61)ELT33(Kar); 1990(3)KarLJ405
ORDERM.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These petitions are before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge after hearing the matter at length, considering a number of cases decided on the character and nature of proceedings under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came to the conclusion that the views expressed by the various High Courts including our own High Court were at variance with each other and as such the question was required to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court and made the reference. The question formulated by the learned Single Judge is a follows : 'Whether under the scheme of the Act the proceedings under Chapter XIV should come to an end or cannot be initiated at all depending upon the validity of an order made by Collector under Section 110(2) and return of goods as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Act in the event of there being no extension of time...
Tungabhadra Steel Products Ltd. Vs. Deputy Collector of Central Excise
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-1990
Reported in: 2004(163)ELT298(Kar)
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the levy of excise duty on seven Electric Overhead Travelling Cranes fabricated by the petitioner for carrying on their work under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ('the Act' for short).2. The brief facts of the case are these :- The petitioner M/s. Tungab-hadra Steel Products Limited are carrying on the business of fabrication and erection of Hydraulic Gates, hoists, etc,, required for construction of dams and multipurpose river valley projects. For their own use they fabricate and erect electric overhead travelling cranes, at the concerned work spot. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon it to pay excise duty on the value of the seven cranes which were valued at Rs. 53,91,379/-. The excise duty assessed was Rs. 5,39,252.16 Ps. The petitioner furnished reply to the show cause notice stating that these cranes are fabricated at the site at which they were necessary and therefore th...
H. Mohan and Another Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR612; 1990(3)KarLJ331
K. Ramachandriah, J.1. Although this criminal petition is listed for admission today, it is disposed of on the merits by consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader and after hearing both of them on the merits.2. The facts which have given rise to this petition are that the petitioners jointly issued a cheque in favour of the managing partner of Sri Satyanarayana Finance Corporation, Hospet, for a sum of Rs. 60,000 on January 21, 1990, on the State Bank of Mysore, Bazaar branch, Hospet. When presented by the payee, the said cheque came to be dishonoured. Thereafter, the payee issued notice to the petitioners. Some time after the issue of notice to the petitioners, the payee filed a complaint on February 20, 1990, before the sub-inspector of police, Hospet town police station, for taking necessary action against the petitioner. On the basis of that complaint, a case in Crime No. 62 of 1990 was registered against the petitioners for an offe...
M.L. Srinivasa Setty and Sons Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: [1992]193ITR548(KAR); [1992]193ITR548(Karn)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj, UPS.1. These civil revision petitions under the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (in short the 'the Act'), filed as a common petition were directed against a composite order dated August 19, 1987 of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Karnataka, Bangalore. 2. The facts leading to the petitions may be stated briefly and they are as follows : By four assessment orders as at annexures 'A' to 'D', dated December 30, 1978, December 30, 1978, December 31, 1978 and December 30, 1978, respectively, relating to the accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75, the relevant assessing authority concluded the assessment, under the Act of Messrs. M. L. Srinivasa Setty and Sons, Coffee and Rubber Planters, assessed in its capacity as a registered partnership firm under the Partnership Act as well as under the provisions of the Act (section 29). The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, respondent herein, in exercise of ...
R. Govindaraj Vs. Government Tool Room Training Centre and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR234]; 1990(3)KarLJ394; (1992)ILLJ597Kant
Rama Jois, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner who is an employee on the establishment of Government Tool Room Training Center, has prayed for quashing an order by which the penalty of reduction to the starting point of his pay scale had been imposed in a disciplinary proceeding held against him. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are these : The petitioner was working as a Machinist, Gr. IV at Government Toll Room and Training Centre, Bangalore, in the year 1985. He was the President of the Government Tool Room and Training Centre Unit of Bangalore Mazdoor Sangh, a trade union, registered under the Trade Unions Act. It appearance that, on July 16, 1985, one Hemanth Kumar, a workman of respondent No. 1, was taken to police station at 11.45 a.m., in connection with a complaint said to have been lodged against the said workman. All the workmen of the Tool Room got agitated about the taking of Hemanth Kumar to the police station. According to the petitioner, some time earlier also...
Dr. K.P. Shenoy Vs. Karnataka Medical Council, Bangalore and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant271; 1990(3)KarLJ349
ORDER1. The petitioner who is a Registered Medical Practitioner, is a consulting E.N.T. Surgeon and Anesthesiologist. He was the Professor of Anaesthesiology at Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, and Honorary Anesthesiologist to Government Wenlock Hospital and Government Lady Goschen Hospital, Mangalore. It is stated that he was also a consultant for Fr. Muller's Hospital, Kankanady, Mangalore. He has been running a Nursing Home under the name and style of Shri Ramakrishna Nursing Home at Mangalore as a proprietary concern since 1967. He has also been working as Anesthesiologist since 1967. Smt. Shakunthala V, Pai was admitted to the petitioner's Nursing Home on 5-8-1981 under advise of Dr. U. K. Kini, the Surgeon. The petitioner was informed by the Surgeon that the patient was being posted for hemithyroidectomy under general anaesthesia on 6-8-1981 at 3-30 p.m. The operation was performed by the Surgeon assisted by another Doctor between 3-30 p.m. and 5-30 p.m. on 6-8-1981 and it wa...
Sayyed Murtujahaseni @ Murshad Peer Vs. Karnataka State Board of Wakfs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1572; 1990(3)KarLJ592
K.A. Swami, J. 1. This second Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 4-9-1980 passed in Regular Appeal No. 108 of 1979 by the Principal Civil Judge, Bijapur, affirming the Judgment and decree dated 24-8-1979 passed in Original Suit No. 149 of 1975 by the Additional Munsiff, Bijapur.2. Appellant is the plaintiff. He filed the aforesaid suit for a declaration that the order passed by the first defendant (first respondent) in No. LCC 16/41/69 dated 29th August 1972 is null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the working of the plaintiff as Managing Mutwalli of the suit Darga.3. The first defendant (first respondent) did not file a written statement. Other defendants contested the suit. Issues 6 and 7 were tried by the trial Court as preliminary issues. Those issues are as follows:'Issue No. 6: Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit? Issue No. 7: Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 56 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›