Karnataka Court February 1990 Judgments
Transco Industries Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1990
Reported in: [1990]184ITR531(KAR); [1990]184ITR531(Karn)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs., J.1. This matter coming up for orders on I.A. No. I for vacating stay, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal and disposed of by the following order after hearing counsel for the petitioner as well as for the Revenue. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the show-cause notice issued as at annexure D purporting to be one issued under section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The notice states that a sum of Rs. 34,754 is outstanding in respect of the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 and it has not been paid despite levy of penalty under section 221(1) of the Act. In that connection, the respondent Income-tax Officer has proposed to launch prosecution under section 276C(2) of the Act for non-payment of the tax arrears if it is not paid within 10 days from the date of receipt of the letter. If further states that necessary challan for payment with interest for reason of delayed payment may be obtained from his o...
Tag this Judgment!Dharwar Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. Vs. State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1816
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner is the Dharwar Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. represented by its Managing Director. It is aggrieved by the activities of the 5th respondent/Sri Krishna Milk Private Ltd. which is alleged to be carrying on the activities similar to the activities carried on by the petitioner under a letter of understanding reached between the National Dairy Development Board, Union of India and the State Government. In the circumstances, the following reliefs are sought in the Writ Petition:(a) Call for the records from the 2nd respondent pertaining to the issue of Provisional Registration Certificate bearing No. 0012-00254;(b) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or such other appropriate Writ, direction or order quashing the Provisional Registration Certificate, bearing No. 001200254 issued by the Assistant Director, District Industries Centre, Sirsi Sub-Division, Sirsi;(c) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus restraining Respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganatha Associates Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR820
1. The petitioner, M/s. Ranganatha Associates, a firm of partners, is the purchaser of the exclusive privilege of retail vend of arrack in the Bangalore Urban District for the year commencing from the 1st July, 1987. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and correctness of the condition requiring him to pay sales tax on the excise duty on arrack and the bottling charges of arrack. The petitioner also assails the constitutionality of the Forty-sixth Amendment. The vires of section 5(3-D) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, is also challenged. 2. Under the Karnataka Excise (Lease of Rights of Retail Vend of Liquor) Rules, 1969, arrack is required to be supplied to the petitioner and, in turn, sold in retail by him, in sealed bottles. Under rule 2 of the Karnataka (Excise Duty) Rules, 1958 (referred as 'the Rules' hereinafter), excise duty is payable on arrack when arrack is issued from any distillery, ware-house or place of storage. The petitioner, before obtain...
Tag this Judgment!Dynamatic Hydraulics Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1990
Reported in: 1990(50)ELT21(Kar); 1991(4)KarLJ295
ORDER1. These 3 petitions have come up for preliminary hearing after notice. The respondents have been served and they have been represented, Respondents counsel has been heard. 2. The short question that falls for determination in this case is whether the claim of refund made by the petitioner/Company before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise which came to be partly disallowed may be sustained in law and refund of the duty paid under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 may be directed by a writ of mandamus. 3. The relevant facts may be stated and they are as follows : The petitioner/Company is incorporated under the Companies Act. It manufactures and sells parts and accessories of tractors and hydraulic gear pumps and in that behalf it obtained licence under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The products of the company were classified under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Schedule I to the Act. But, after the Central Excise Tariff A...
Tag this Judgment!B. Sathyanarayana Vs. Additional District Judge
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1107; 1990(1)KarLJ338
ORDERRama Jois, Ag. C.J.1. In this Writ Petition referred to Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, the following question of law arises for consideration:'Whether an Additional District Judge has the jurisdiction to dispose of an appeal presented under Section 10 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974?'2. The facts of the case are these: The petitioner took a premises belonging to the Municipal Council, Davanagere on lease for a term for the purpose of running a hotel. The period of lease came to an end on 31-3-1983. Thereafter the Municipal Council issued a notice to the appellant to vacate the premises. As he failed to vacate the premises, proceedings were initiated by the Estate Officer appointed under the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 ('the Act' for short) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1990
Reported in: [1992]196ITR574(KAR); [1992]196ITR574(Karn)
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee. 2. The following questions are referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable to the applicant's case 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income-tax and surtax liabilities of the Syndicate Bank Ltd. which was amalgamated with the applicant company was not allowable as business expenditure in the computation of the total income of the applicant ?' 3. The assesses-company, the Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Ltd., Manipal, is the successor company to the Syndicate Bank Ltd. After the Syndicate Bank was nationalised in the year 1969, under the Banki...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Restaurant and ors. Vs. Competent Authority (Safemfopa) and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1990
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC150
ORDERM.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. In W.P. No. 18551 of 1988 disposed of on 6-2-1990 Reported in [1990] 27 ECC 89 (Kar), I quashed the impugned detention order as well as the consequential notice issued under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 ('the Act') following the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hazi Masthan : 1984CriLJ610 . The only difference on the facts of that case and facts in these petitions are as follows: 2. One B.M. Abdul Rahiman a partner of the 1st petitioner Messrs Karnataka Restaurant was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) in the year 1976 as evidenced by Annexure-A to the petition. That order was not challenged by him. The said order as at Annexure-A is the one which has been quashed in the aforementioned writ petition, by my order dated 6-2-1990. In this petition, therefore what remains for consideration on the facts of th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vasumathi Vs. Chandriyani Madhavi and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant201; ILR1990KAR3885; 1990(2)KarLJ469
ORDER1. The short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is --Whether the order passed by the learned City Civil Judge transferring the petition pending before him to the Family Court is valid and proper,2. The facts are these : Smt. Vasumathi,the petitioner herein, on the death of herhusband Raman, approached the City CivilCourt by filing an application dated 30-8-1986 under S. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short the Act of 1925) seekingfor issuance of a Succession Certificate in herfavour in respect of the estate left behind byher husband. She impleaded in her application one Chandriyani Madhavi, step-sister ofher husband. 3. After issuing notices and after publishing the matter in a news paper, the matter was set down for evidence and as submitted by the learned counsel, the evidence was almost at the completion stage,4. In the meantime, one Janki claiming to be the wife of deceased Raman also filed an application under O. I. R. 10, C.P.C., se...
Tag this Judgment!B.M. Abdul Rahiman Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2406; 1990(27)ECC89
ORDER1. This matter coming up for orders, by consent of Counsel and after hearing the Counsel for parties, is disposed of by the following order. 2. The short question that falls to be answered is, whether the petitioner may invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek the following reliefs i.e., to set aside the order of detention dated 30-6-76 and notices issued as at Annexures-'D' and 'E' under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property Act,) 1976, inter alia on the ground that the respondent No. 2 the competent authority under the aforementioned Act has no jurisdiction to proceed with any action under the notice as the detention order itself is liable to be set aside as being illegal and in violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioner. That the petitioner was detained under the Conversation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) as...
Tag this Judgment!Sahebagowda Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR884
Rama Jois, Ag.C.J. 1. The short question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the requisition to convene a meeting of the Mulasavatagi Mandal Panchayat to consider the resolution of no confidence in the appellants Is legal and valid.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are these: The total number of the Members of the Mulasavatagi Mandal Panchayat fixed according to the provisions of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) is 26. Out of them 18 persons signed the requisition to convene a meeting of the Panchayat for considering the resolution expressing no confidence in the Pradhan and Upapradhan of the Panchayat. Questioning the legality of the said requisition and the meeting convened pursuant to it, the appellants presented the Writ Petitions.3. The contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that out of 18 signatories to the requisition, two namely respo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »