Karnataka Court April 1990 Judgments
V.N. Satyanarayana Setty and Bros. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Chintam ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1990
Reported in: [1990]79STC277(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs J.1. This petition was filed on 17th July, 1989, questioning the legality and correctness of the notice issued as at annexure A by which the respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer, Chintamani Circle, Kolar District, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his turnover for the year ending 31st March, 1988, should not be revised, and assessment concluded as per assessment order dated 24th July, 1988, as at annexure A. 2. A rectified notice dated 22nd May, 1989, was issued under section 25A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'), on the ground that his turnover was accepted at Rs. 2,36,626.90 and while calculating as per books of accounts Rs. 4,07,276.90 was found to be the correct turnover. In response to the said notice the petitioner addressed a letter to the Commercial Tax Officer concerned seeking further time to submit his explanation. He obtained two such adjournments and thereafter approached this Court to quash the said ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Madappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1785
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 18-3-1986 in case No. DSK/LQD/398/85-86 passed by the Director of Sugar and Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore, who is respondent-2 herein and also against the order of the State o.f Karnataka represented by its Secretary to Government, Co-operation Department, Bangalore, which is respondent-1 herein accepting the offer of respondent-4 for lease/sale of Mahadeswara Sahakara Sakkare Karkane Limited, Kollegal.3. The petitioners are the residents of Mullur Village, Kollegal Taluk, Mysore District. They are sugar-cane growers. They are share holders of Mahadeswara Sahakara Sakkare Karkane Limited, Kollegal, and they are aggrieved on account of the winding up of the Society and the sale of the factory to respondent No. 4.4. Briefly set out the following are the essential facts:Resp...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ram Rao Vs. Commissioner of Labour
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1990
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR125]; ILR1990KAR1848; (1991)ILLJ14Kant
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 29th March 1984 passed by the 1st respondent in IAA/CR-104/83-84 produced as Annexure 'M' in the writ petition and also for issuing a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate direction restraining the Munsiff and First Class Magistrate, Chikmagalur, from proceeding further with C.C. No.701 of 1984 on his file. 2. It is contended by the petitioners that there is a dispute as to the contents of the settlement for the violation of which the sanction is accorded for prosecution; therefore, the order of sanction is bad in law; that there is no determination as to the terms of settlement; that the sanction is accorded for prosecution without application of mind. 3. On the contrary, Sri Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, submits that the petitioners did not dispute that there was a settlement arrived at between the petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!F.K. MenzlIn Vs. B.P. Premakumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1990
Reported in: [1991(61)FLR548]; (1991)ILLJ55Kant
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs : a) to issue a writ or prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the second respondent not to proceed further with C.C. No. 1528/81 pending on his file by declaring the entire proceedings as illegal and bad; b) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order declaring the order No. IAA/Cr-164/80-81 dated 13th July 1981 passed by the Commissioner of Labour in Karnataka, Bangalore (Annexure 'C') as illegal, void and inoperative; c) if necessary declare that portion of the provisions of Section 34(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 containing the words 'or under the authority of' as unconstitutional and void; and d) to issue such other writs, or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs etc., of the above writ petition in the interests of j...
Tag this Judgment!Oswal Plastics Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1724; 1990(3)KarLJ389
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J. 1. Though the matter is posted for preliminary hearing have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents for final disposal.2. The petitioner is a proprietory concern doing manufacturing of various plastic products. He is supplied with power through R.R. No. W-3P/1643. His accounts are mentioned In Ledger Folio No. 134.3. On 21st February 1990 at about 8-30 p.m. when the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Electricity Board inspected the premises of the petitioner, he found that the consumer has inserted a thick flexible plastic sheet of paper in between the glass of the meter and the body of the top cover and thus making the meter defunct. Immediately the Officer concerned disconnected the power supply, by drawing a Mahazer. The Mahazer copy is produced as Annexure R-1. The incident of that date Is narrated thus:'It was noticed that the power installation of M/s. Oswal Plastics was running at 8-30 p.m. On further inspe...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Shankarappa Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR4082
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for a declaration that the Cinematograph Act 1952 as amended by Act No. 49 of 1981 and the Cinematograph (Censorship) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' and the 'Rules') are void and unenforceable. He has also sought for a direction restraining the respondent from enforcing the provisions of the Act and the Rules against the petitioner.2. Though in the petition the contentions are raised in a general manner relating to several provisions of the Act and the Rules, but during the course of argument, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner confined the case to the following contentions:That the Parliament was not competent to pass the Act; that Sections 3, 4 and 5D of the Act do not contain the guidelines, in as much as, no qualifications are prescribed for the members of the Board and the Appellate Tribunal, that Section 7 of the Act in so far it imposes the penalty...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›