Karnataka Court December 1990 Judgments
Mohanlal T. Rathod Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-27-1990
Reported in: 1997(57)ECC188; 1994LC492(Karnataka); 1992(58)ELT66(Kar)
ORDER1. The petitioner was in prison being a detenu under Section 3(1)(iii) of the CAFEPOSA Act, 1974 during the period 15-10-1986 and 14-10-1987. During this period he was served with the notice, regarding certain proceedings to confiscate gold and levy penalty under the provisions of the Customs Act and Gold Control Act. The petitioner did not send any reply; his counsel wrote a letter to the Collector stating that the petitioner was in prison and the proceedings may be postponed till he is released from detention. It was also stated in the letter that the petitioner desires to cross-examine the panchas and other officers etc. This letter was written on 13-4-1987. However, the Collector made on order on 11-6-1987 wherein he states that in spite of service of notice the petitioner did not send any reply, but his counsel sent a letter seeking adjournment. An observation was made in the order that the reply of the counsel was not accompanied with Vakalatnama. I may point out here itself...
Tag this Judgment!B. Gurumallappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-21-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR577; 1991(4)KarLJ356
Ramakrishna, J.1. Since the facts and circumstances arising in this Appeal are not in dispute, we need not refer to the same. 2. Two contentions have been urged in support of this Appeal. Firstly, the election that has taken place pursuant to the Calendar of Events issued in the year 1984 is illegal as three persons viz., (1) Patel Lingappa - A Class Member, (2) K.M. Puttaswamy and (3) Karigowda - 3 Class members, having filed their nominations pursuant to the said Calendar of Events, died subsequently. Therefore, the Election Officer ought to have issued fresh Calendar of Events giving opportunity to those intending to file nominations afresh as required by law. Secondly, the view taken by the learned single Judge that when there was a provision for filing an election petition challenging the correctness of the election in question, this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere with such an election, was incorrect and cannot be sustained.3...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Prabha Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-21-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1276
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. In all these cases, the petitioners have common pleadings. The Bangalore Development Authority allotted sites in favour of the petitioners in Rajamahal Vilas, I Stage, Bangalore. Thereafter, lease-cum-sale agreements were executed by the petitioners and the petitioners were put in possession by issue of possession certificates. The full amount of allotment price of the sites was paid by each of the petitioners to Bangalore Development Authority and there is no dispute about it.2. When the petitioners were making preparations to put up constructions on the sites allotted to them, the State of Karnataka issued notices to the petitioners purporting to exercise its power under Section 63 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 and calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the allotment of sites made in their favour should not be cancelled for two reasons; (1) that the allottees have not registered their names duly in accordance with Rule 8 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Raju Setty Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Kant108
ORDERSwamy J.1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24-3-1979 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bangalore City in R.A. No. 117 of 1977 confirming the decree dated 20-1-1977 passed in O.S. 257 of 1973 by the learned V Additional I Munsiff, Bangalore.2. The appellant is the 3rd defendant. The respondent is the plaintiff -- Bank of Baroda. There were two more defendants in the suit viz., defendants 1 and 2. Defendant No. 1 -- H. Malegowda was the principal-debtor and defendant 2 T. B. Subba Rao was one of the sureties.3. The suit was filed on 25-1-1973 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,545-81 (Principalsum being Rs. 3200/-) advanced as a loan to the 1st defendant -- H. Malegowda on 7-4-1969 under a pronote dated 7-4-1969 and also under a hypothecation deed executed by him on 7-4-1969 hypothecating 3 HP pumpset for which the loan was advanced to defendant No. 1 -- H. Malegowda. Defendants 2 and 3 were the guarantors who had executed a guarantee bond on 7-4-1...
Tag this Judgment!Gaonkar and Company Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: [1992]87STC150(Kar)
M. P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. The appellant is an agent of the Indian Oil Corporation. He runs a petrol bunk at Dharwad and sells petrol and petroleum products supplied by his principal - the Indian Oil Corporation. He also deals in grocery and other general merchandise articles, popularly known as 'kirana' transactions in that area. For the assessment year 1981-82 (Deepavali year), he returned a total turnover of Rs. 1,09,629.90 claiming exemption in respect of a turnover of Rs. 1,09,38,322.80 relating to trading in petroleum products. The assessing authority held that in terms of the agreement the appellant had with the Indian Oil Corporation, the sales of petroleum products had already suffered tax and, therefore, be exempted the turnover from tax. He brought to tax the sale of kerosene in view of a decision of this Court, amounting to Rs. 44,52,410 at Rs. 22,262.05 up to April 16, 1982 after which kerosene came to be exempted from payment of tax. Therefore, he issued a propositi...
Tag this Judgment!C. Mahalingaiah and Sons Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: [1991]83STC296(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. These three sales tax appeals are disposed of by the following common order as the questions of facts and law raised in them are identical and only the assessment years being different. They relate to the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, the accounting period being the calendar year. 2. The appellant-assesses is a commission agent as well as a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of merchants and commission agents at Turuvekere in Tumkur district. The firm filed its returns for the relevant assessment years disclosing the turnover in copra and also in coconut. In respect of the turnover relating to copra, it claimed exemption as its turnover related to inter-State sales. The same was granted in regard to that turnover. It had collected tax for the year 1978 in a sum of Rs. 2,222.29, for the year 1979 in a sum of Rs. 3,790.72 and for the year 1980, Rs. 4,467.03...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: [1992]87STC312(Kar)
ORDERM.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The short question which falls for determination in this appeal is, whether the appellant's purchase of certain steel shutter lathes (claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant as the common parlance usage of certain components used in the manufacture of rolling shutters and the like) fall specifically under entry 2(a)(v) of the Fourth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and as such are liable to tax at the point of the first sale or, whether such steel shutter lathes fall outside entry 2(a) and, therefore, are liable to tax under section 5(1) of the Act on its purchase or sale and brought to tax on the turnover. 2. For the assessment year 1977-78 (Deepavali year), the assessing authority refused to accept the contention of the assessee that he was entitled to exemption as the items purchased by him, namely, steel shutter lathes, fell within the ambit of entry 2(a)(v) and was liable to tax at the first sale point in the State and he ...
Tag this Judgment!Kultej Singh Vs. Circle Inspector of Police and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3198; 1991(4)KarLJ358
ORDER1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Kultej Singh, brother of Sri Herdeep Singh, has sought for issue of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce Sri Hardeep Singh and to pass such consequential orders as are necessary. 2. On 27-11-1990, Sri Doddamani, learned Govt. Pleader was directed to take notice for the respondents. 3. The learned Govt. Pleader has filed the affidavits of Sri N. B. Patil, Circle Inspector of Police, Shiggaon Circle, Shiggaon, and Sri P.S. Gachinagatti, Sub-Inspector of Savanur Police Station, Savanur, who are respondents 1 and 2 respectively. In both the affidavits, the averments made in the petition as to the arrest have been denied. 4. Sri Kashinath Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised several contentions. However, he gave up all his contentions except the one that even though Sri Hardeep Singh was arrested in the morning of 27-9-1990, he was produced before the Court only on 29...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Sujirkar's Tile Works
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-1990
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR206]; (1999)IIILLJ231Kant
M. Rama Jois, J.1. The appeal is presented under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act ('the Act' for short) aggrieved by the order of the E.S.I. Court and the writ petition is presented by the respondent in the appeal questioning the constitutional validity of Regulation 40 of the E.S.I. Regulations which prescribes the period of limitation for making an application for refund of contribution erroneously paid.2. Brief facts of the case, are these : The respondent is the management of the works at Mangalore. An agreement was entered into between the management and its employees in the course of conciliation. The agreement reads :'Whereas an industrial dispute arose between the management of Tile Factories in Mangalore (as per Schedule) represented by the Western India Tile Manufacturers Association, Mangalore, and the workmen of Tile Factories in Mangalore represented by the Kanara Hanchu Kelasagara Sangha, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada Hanchina Kelasagara Sangh, Mangalore, th...
Tag this Judgment!E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Sujirkar's Tile Works
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1385
Rama Jois, J.1. The Appeal is presented under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act ('the Act' for short) aggrieved by the order of the E.S.I. Court and the Writ Petition is presented by the respondent in the Appeal questioning the Constitutional validity of Regulation 40 of the E.S.I. Regulations which prescribes the period of limitation for making an application for refund of contribution erroneously paid.2. Brief facts of the case, are these: The respondent is the Management of Tile Works at Mangalore. An Agreement was entered into between the Management and its employees in the course of conciliation. The agreement reads:'Whereas an industrial dispute arose between the management of Tile Factories in Mangalore (as per Schedule) represented by the Western India Tile Manufacturers Association, Mangalore, and the workmen of Tile Factories in Mangalore represented by the Kanara Hanchu Kelasagara Sangha, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada Hanchina Kelasagarara Sangha, Mangalore, the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »