Karnataka Court September 1990 Judgments
Hind Nippon Rural Industries Private Limited Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC46(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This sales tax revision petition is preferred by the assessee, M/s. Hind Nippon Rural Industries Private Limited. It is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. It is claimed for the assesses-company that it is a dealer in granite. It purchases, prepares the granite into finished products and exports the same to foreign countries. In respect of the assessment year 1975-76 (from October 1, 1975 to September 30, 1976) it claimed exemption from payment of purchase tax on its purchase turnover in the sum of Rs. 4,08,306 being the cost of a crane purchased from M/s. Tractors India Ltd., Calcutta, in order to lift the granite slabs and stones from the quarry. The assessing authority, namely, the Commercial Tax Officer, XV Circle, Bangalore-9, formed the opinion, as is borne out from his assessment order dated December 3, 1977, that the assessee was a dealer who only purchases and sells granite slabs and is not entitled to purchase a crane u...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Illyas Vs. Union of India (Uo I)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2804
K.A. Swami, J.1. In alt these Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners - operators of the tourist, vehicles or stage carriages have sought for a declaration that the provisions of Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rule 259(2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') are violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and to strike down the same. The petitioners - the operators of the tourist vehicles have also sought for a declaration that the operation of the tourist vehicles under valid tourist permits for Country wide operation between one terminus in home State and another terminus in another State are not liable to be seized and detained on the basis of Entry 16 of the Notification bearing No. FTD 18 TMR 85 dated 13-11 -1986 on the sole ground that the said tourist vehicles are operated as non-stop stage carriages between any two points and ca...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Bangalore and Another Vs. S. Jagadish ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC566; 1991ACJ1105; AIR1991Kant258; ILR1990KAR4384
1. These appeals under S. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the Act'), are of the insurer and the owner of a motor vehicle (Tempo) preferred against the common judgment and separate awards dated 28-3-1988 in Cases -- M.V.C. No. 577/ 86 and M.V.C. No. 578/86, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore ('the Claims Tribunal'), awarding compensation to persons who had suffered bodily injuries in an accident arising out of the use of that Tempo.2. Tempo-- CNS 6061 is the motor vehicle, in which S. Jagadish, claimant in M.V.C. No. 577/86 and respondent in M.F.A. No. 1448/1988. and S. Shivappa Shastri, claimant in M.V.C. No. 578/88 and respondent in M.F.A. No. 1449/1988, were travelling from Shimoga to Bangalore at 4.30 a.m., on 15-6-1986 when that vehicle dashed against a road-side tree near Budihal while on Tumkur Bangalore Road, resulting in a motor accident. Jagadish and Shivappa Shastri, who sustained bodily injuries in that accident, cl...
Tag this Judgment!Jayajeevan and Co. Vs. Additional Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Be ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC102(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. The only question raise in these S.T.R.Ps. is that pipe made out of polyethylene is not an article made out of plastic or polythene or polyvinyl chloride mentioned in entry 110 of the Second Schedule as it was at the relevant time, i.e., for the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 and as such it was not exigible to tax under that entry. 2. In order to support that argument, the learned counsel Sri B. P. Gandhi placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Atul Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1986] 63 STC 322 and commended to our acceptance that unless it was demonstrable that polyethylene was plastic, the pipes made out of that material and sold to customers by the assessee could not be brought to tax under entry 110 as it stood then. 3. The Supreme Court in the aforementioned case of Atul Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. [1986] 63 STC 322, dealing with the expression 'glass' and 'glassware' occurring ...
Tag this Judgment!Basavarajappa Vs. M.S. Channabasappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1565; 1991(1)KarLJ44
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. The Office has raised an objection that there is a delay of 16 days in filing the appeal, but the Office is not right in pointing out that there is a delay of 16 days. However, there is a delay of only four days,2. The learned Counsel for the appellant has filed an affidavit of the appellant stating thus:'2. The Judgment was pronounced on 16-11-1989. But the decree is signed on 22-11-1989, Certified copy was sought on 21-11-1989. Further, I was required to appear and receive copy on 7-12-1989 on which date I appeared and took copy. Therefore, the limitation started running only from 7-12-1989 and not 16-11-1989 or any other date.3. I have filed the appeal on 7-3-1990 which was the 90th day. The calculation is as under:From 7-12-1989 to 7-3-1990:December 1989. . . . 24 daysJanuary 1990. . . . 31 daysFebruary 1990. . . . 28 daysMarch 1990. . . . 7 days 90 daysThere is therefore, no delay. The appeal may be registered and posted for admission.Wherefore, I pray acco...
Tag this Judgment!Union Bank of India Vs. Little Industries and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: [1992]75CompCas311(Kar)
M. Ramakrishna, J.1. In this revision petition, the petitioner-plaintiff has sought for revision of the order made by the trial court in O.S. No. 139 of 1986, dated March 7, 1987, by which it rejected part of the claim put forward in an application under Order 6, rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, and allowed the remaining part. 2. The salient facts that are necessary for the purpose of disposal of this revision are as follows : The plaintiff-petitioner has brought a suit in O.S. No. 139 of 1986 on the file of the Court of Prl. Civil Judge, Mysore, seeking to recover a certain amount of money from the defendants-respondents. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 6, rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, came to be filed on July 29, 1986. In that application, the following prayer was made to amend the plaint : 1. By amending paragraph 4, after the words (?) to add as 'For all the transactions mentioned above.' 2. In para 6, to delete the total amount mentioned therein and he...
Tag this Judgment!Automobile Products of India Limited Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC414(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantharaj Urs, J. 1. The question in this sales tax revision petition arises for decision by us in the following circumstances : Certain consignment of motor vehicles, viz., Lambretta scooters of 150 cc was carried in vehicle bearing registration mark TNM 7484. When checked at sales tax check-post of Nippani in Belgaum district By the Check-post Officer, he found that as per the Invoice No. 11/30436 to No. 11/30464 dated 27th July, 1983, M/s. Automobile Products of India Ltd., Bhandup, Bombay-78, had issued those invoices to different customers in Bangalore and one in Devaraya Samudra of Kolar District. The invoices also disclosed that Central sales tax at 12 per cent was collected apparently by the seller at Bombay. However, the goods vehicle record, which is one of the documents prescribed to be carried under sub-section (2) of section 28-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, to accompany goods in transit which are exigible to sales tax in Karnataka, disclosed that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Karnat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC87(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantharaj Urs, J. 1. This sales tax revision petition is by the Karnataka Food & Civil Supplies Corporation. Its status is that of a public limited company. For the assessment year 1976-77, i.e., from July 1, 1976 to June 30, 1977, the assesses-company returned taxable turnover at Rs. 18,54,76,058 against a total turnover of Rs. 26,78,68,758. The assesses-company further claimed exemption/deduction in a sum of Rs. 8,23,92,700 comprised under the following heads : 1. Karnataka sales tax collected Rs. 65,31,013.002. Sugar and paddy Rs. 1,32,80,374.003. Second sales of foodgrains Rs. 4,62,96,511.004. Government administrative charges due toGovernment wholesale commission of theCorporation including the sales foraccounting convenience but not taxableas they are not provided for in thecosting sheet approved by Government. Rs. 1,62,84,802.00--------------------Total Rs. 8,23,92,700.00-------------------- 2. The assessing authority, while allowing the exemption claimed under the f...
Tag this Judgment!Bharamappa Kalappa Ijari Vs. Venkatesh Sesha Itagi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR208; 1990(3)KarLJ308
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J.1. This Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is against the order made in Execution Case No. 20/1987 on the file of the Court of the I Munsiff, Dharwar dated 18th of April 1987.2. The facts leading to the filing of the revision petition are as follows:Venkatesh Sesha Itagi, the first respondent herein (since deceased by his L.Rs) filed a suit in O.S. 45/1975 in the Court of the Prl. Munsiff, Dharwar on 11-2-1975 seeking to recover two sums of money (1) Rs. 1,000/-and (2) Rs. 1,500/- from the petitioner herein. By an order made on 30th of September 1987, the suit came to be decreed in respect of Rs. 1,000/- and it was dismissed in respect of Rs. 1,500/-. As against the decree passed by the Court below, R.A. No. 70/1977 came to be filed by the petitioner-defendant and the appeal came to be dismissed. R.A.No. 71/1977 presented by the plaintiff as against the dismissal of the suit came to be allowed and the suit was decreed for a sum of ...
Tag this Judgment!A.G. Shivalingappa Vs. A.G. Shankarappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1804; 1990(3)KarLJ408
B.P. Singh, J. 1. The plaintiff/respondent had presented a Sale Deed for registration relating to Sy. Nos. 21/7 and 21/8 of village Alur before the Sub-Registrar at Channagiri on 1st April 1970. The Sub-Registrar, after recording the statement of the defendant/executant, refused to register that document and passed an order under Section 36 of the Indian Registration Act ('the Act' for short). The said order is rather ambiguous. While he has observed that the executant has denied execution of the document (Ex.P-1) he also observed that another document which was executed by the plaintiff should also be produced for registration. He has ultimately refused registration of the document (Ex.P-1) on the ground that the execution of the same was not proved. It is quite apparent that if the Sub-Registrar refuses to register a document on the ground that any person, by whom it purports to be executed, denies its execution, the aggrieved party may move the District Registrar by way of an applic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »