Karnataka Court August 1990 Judgments
M/S. Shilpa Products and Etc. Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corpn. and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant108
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In these three writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of S. 29 of the Karnataka State Financial Corporations Act, 1951.2. The brief facts of the case are these.The Karnataka State Financial Corporation has been established by the State Government, by virtue of the power vested in it under S. 3 of the Karnataka State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, (the 'Act' for short). S. 24 of the Act provides that the Board of a State Financial Corporation in discharging its functions under this Act shall act on business principles, due regard being had by it to the interests of industry, commerce and the general public. S. 25 of the Act, specifies the kinds of business which the Financial Corporation should carry on under the Act. One of the powers of the Corporation is guaranteeing, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon; loans raised by industrial concerns which are repayable within a period not exceeding twenty years, and ar...
Tag this Judgment!Shilpa Products Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1990
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas878(Kar); 1990(2)KarLJ472
Rama Jois, J.1. In these three writ petitions, the petitioner have questioned the constitutional validity of section 29 of the Karnataka State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: 3. The Karnataka State Financial Corporation has been established by the State Government, by virtue of the power vested in it under section 3 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act'). Section 24 of the Act provides that the Board of a State Financial Corporation, in discharging its functions under this Act, shall act on business principles, due regard being had by it to the interests of industry, commerce and the general public. Section 25 of the Act specifies the kinds of business which the financial corporation should carry on under the Act. One of the powers of the corporation is guaranteeing on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon, loans raised by industrial concern which are repayable within a period not exceeding twenty yea...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalore Steel Agency Vs. Government of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC164(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner is M/s. Mangalore Steel Agency. It is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is aggrieved by the assessment orders as at annexure-A concerning its taxable turnover for the period 1st October, 1979 to 31st August, 1980. The total turnover returned was Rs. 68,01,457.50. On identical amount exemption was also claimed inter-alia, on the ground that the goods in question, namely, mild steel rounds, flats, etc., sold to M/s. Canara Wire and Wire Products, Yeyyadi, Mangalore, were goods which had been re-rolled items by the principals of the assessee who claimed to be only an agent. It is clear from the assessment order as at annexure-A that in support of exemption claimed, from No. 32 was not produced, as an agent of the principal as per section 11(1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessing authority came to the conclusion that the sales made were re-rolled iron steel out of tax-paid in...
Tag this Judgment!B.H. Inamdar Vs. B.F. Swamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1654
B.P. Singh, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by Sri B.H. Inamdar, Secretary, Karnataka Grama Seva Sangha, Work head Office, at Raichur. The suit filed by the Appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court holding that the appellant-plaintiff had no right to file the suit and the suit was not properly instituted on behalf of the Sangha.2. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit being O.S.No.40/1973 in the Court of the Principal Munsiff at Gulbarga, claiming a decree for a sum of Rs. 4,200/- and interest thereon at 9% per annum from the defendant. It was alleged that the defendant had purchased old furniture from the Karnataka Grama Seva Sangha and had failed to pay the sale price. It is not disputed that the Karnataka Grama Seva Sangha is a registered Society under the Hyderabad Societies Registration Act, and by virtue of the provisions of Section 31 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!H. Hiriyannaiah Vs. Divisional Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR3947
ORDERHanumanthappa, J.1. The question of law involved in these Writ Petitions since common, they are heard together.2. The attack to the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner under Section 56(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is, such orders are illegal and without jurisdiction. Before arriving at a conclusion whether the orders passed under Section 56(3) of the Act by the Divisional Commissioner or the show cause notices issued by him under Section 56(3) of the Act which are also challenged in some of the Writ Petitions, are in accordance with law, it is proper to state a few facts.3. As per the petitioners, they are the owners of certain agricultural lands situated within the Bangalore City or its surroundings. In view of the fast growing of the City and as it was difficult for them to cultivate the land as they were of small bits, they thought of converting the said lands from agriculture to non-agriculture, so that after conversion they can build their houses and st...
Tag this Judgment!H.N. Srinivas Vs. G.R. Narasimhaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR4036; 1990(2)KarLJ296
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. The legal representatives of the respondent landlord who are on record have filed this application for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition on the ground that the tenant-petitioner has not paid the rents from 1-4-1983. The rate of rent is Rs. 200/- per month. The Civil Revision Petition was filed on 8-2-1990. This application was filed on 23-7-1990 and a copy was served on the learned Counsel on the very day for filing statement of objections. The matter was being adjourned more than once. Ultimately, on 21-8-1990, the I.A. was adjourned to today. When the matter is taken up, the Counsel appearing for the petitioner's Counsel has filed a Counter-Affidavit stating that the petitioner is not in default. But at the same time, the learned Counsel stated before me that the arrears of rent has been deposited in this Court last week. The Counter Affidavit is dated 27-8-1990. Nowhere in the body of the Affidavit it is stated that the deposit has been made in th...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Prasad Roy Vs. Air Vice Marshal Abhay Kumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR4039; 1990(2)KarLJ396
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. The trial Court has permitted the landlord to raise an additional ground under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act ('the Act' for short), by allowing I.A.III. This order is under challenge.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before me that the; petition for amendment was not maintainable because the proceedings had come up to this Court earlier in C.R.P. No. 591 of 1990 and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court for a fresh consideration in the light of the decision therein. From this, the learned Counsel for the petitioner wants to derive the inference that the parties are confined to the existing contentions before the order of remand and no amendment is permissible after the matter is remitted. It is not possible for me to accept this contention. When the order was set aside and the matter was remitted back by this Court, the entire proceedings before the trial Court revived in the absence of any limitatio...
Tag this Judgment!V. Shekar and Others Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1100; ILR1990KAR3821
ORDER1. 'Before parting with this case, we wish to observe that torturing suspects with a view to extorting information from them, is a crude, barbarous and reprehensible method of investigating and detecting crime. Those who are entrusted with the duty of enforcing the law, must learn to obey the law. In police investigation as in other matters, the end does not justify the means; the means are as important as the end'. These observations made by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court as long back as 26-11-1963 in Public Prosecutor v. Shaik Ibrahim, 1964 (2) Cr. LJ 636 are again more eloquently echoed 25 years later in the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration, : 1988CriLJ1800 : 'This is an unfortunate case which tends to shake the credibility of police investigation and undermines the faith of common man in Delhi Police which is supposed to protect life and liberty of citizens and maintain law and order. There have...
Tag this Judgment!Kamat and Co. and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-1990
Reported in: [1991]80STC226(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantharaj Urs, J. 1. In this petition, several petitioners numbering eighteen, have questioned the legality and correctness of the notification issued by the first respondent-State of Karnataka, in exercise of its power under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioners have averred that they are all registered dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957; that they purchase arecanut from local registered dealers by paying the sales tax on the first sale in the State and thereafter sell the same outside the State in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. Therefore, their sales in the course of inter-State trade and commerce is subject to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act at a specified rate. But, by virtue of the notification impugned as at annexure A to the petition, the Central Arecanut Marketing and Processing Co-operative Limited, Mangalore, are totally exempted from payment of Central sales tax s...
Tag this Judgment!K. Venkoji Rao Vs. M. Abdul Khuddur Kureshi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant119; 1991(1)KarLJ1
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29-11-1989 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Mysore in R.A. No. 21/1984. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under :2. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the defendant-appellant for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 26-8-1975 executed by the defendant in favour of the former. Plaintiff also prayed for an alternative relief for the damages in the sum of Rs. 6007-24 ps. Plaintiffs case can be briefly summarised as follows : Defendant was the owner of the suit house and plaintiff was a tenant in a portion of the same since 1966. Defendant entered into an agreement of sale of the suit property viz., the southern half of the entire property for Rs. 14.000/-. Rupees 2000/- was received as advance by the defendant. Defendant agreed to complete the sale transaction within 3 months from the date of agreement. In the agreement it was mentioned that the sale was...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »