Karnataka Court September 1990 Judgments
Yasimsab Fakruddinsab Dori Vs. Basappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3954; 1991(2)KarLJ219
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 24-7-1984 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Dharwar in Civil Revision Petition No. 276/1982 confirming the order dated 1-10-1982 passed in H.R.C. No. 69/1980 by the II Additional Munsiff, Dharwad. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is referred to a Division Bench by Shyamsundar J., on the ground that Kulkarni, J., has taken conflicting views in the two cases, namely, MOHAMMED GHOUSE v. JANA HAJI SYED IBRAHIM, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. and BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. REVANAPPA SANGAPPA. 3. The petitioner in this Revision Petition is a tenant of the schedule premises - front portion bearing City Survey No. 2649/M, situated at Mangalvarpet, Dharwar City, measuring about 12' length and 10' width. The premises is a non-residential premises used for the purpose of running a flour mill. One Shri Basappa, adopted son of Basappa Hangarki was the landlord of the premises. He filed the aforesaid ...
Tag this Judgment!Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: [1992]75CompCas228(Kar); ILR1990KAR3405; 1990(3)KarLJ84
H.G. Balakrishna, J.1. The following are the material facts of the case in which the petitioner is seeking the quashing of the decision of the Central Government contained in a letter dated April 5, 1982 (annexure F), and the decision of the State Government embodied in letter dated August 12, 1982 (annexure H), and for a declaration that the grasilene unit belonging to the petitioner is entitled to the subsidy under annexure A to the extent of Rs. 15 lakhs along with a direction to the respondents to pay the same to the petitioner with interest at 18 per cent. per annum from January 27, 1979, which is the date of the petitioner's application till payment thereof.2. The petitioner, which is a public company, set up a unit called grasilene division in the year 1976 in an industrially backward area of Karnataka at Kumarapatnam in Dharwar District. The said unit went into commercial production in July, 1977. The petitioner-company had complied with all the prescribed formalities for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Khoday Distilleries (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: [1991]82STC251(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. These four appeals arising out of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, are directed against the common order dated January 16, 1984, made in exercise of the powers conferred on the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The appellant-assesses is a distiller and dealer registered under the Act. With reference to his purchase of molasses for the purpose of manufacturing ethyl alcohol, he made use of form 37 prescribed under the Act for the purpose of claiming concessional rate of tax on the purchase of molasses which he treated as a component part of the end-product (ethyl alcohol) sold by him in the State. The assessing authority for the relevant years, viz., 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 imposed penalty in different sums, with the quantum of which we may not concern ourselves, inter alia, on the ground that there was abuse of the form inasmuch as it could not ...
Tag this Judgment!Dandeli Ferro Alloys Private Ltd. Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1164; 1991(1)KarLJ302
ORDERBalakrishna, J. 1. The Dandeli Ferro Alloys Private Limited is one among three electro-metallurgical industrial undertakings producing Ferro Alloys in the State of Karnataka, the other two being Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Limited (VISL) and Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited (SMIORE). The Karnataka Electricity Board and VISL on the one hand and the Board and SMIORE on the other had entered into Special Agreements for the supply of electrical power and under the agreements the two industrial undertakings enjoyed the benefit of special tariff of 5.05 ps. per KWH which was subject to revision once in 5 years in accordance with the prescribed formula. It is asserted that the petitioner being similarly situate, represented to the State Government and not to the Board against the inequitable power tariff made applicable to the petitioner in contrast with the other two industrial undertakings and pleaded for fair treatment instead of discrimination. It is also stated that the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Ishaq and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1990
Reported in: [1992]87STC36(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These two sales tax revision petitions are disposed of by this common order, as they are directed against the common order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, passed in S.T.A. Nos. 158 and 159 of 1984 on its file. The order of the Appellate Tribunal is dated 31st December, 1984. 2. The brief facts to be stated are as follows : The assessee is a registered dealer, dealing in hides and skins, having his place of business at Saligrama in K. R. Nagar Taluk, Mysore District. He filed returns of his turnover for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 disclosing purchase turnover at Rs. 6,36,572.25 and sales turnover at Rs. 7,38,117.03. The sale was further classified as sales of hides and skins to local registered dealers against form No. 52 at Rs. 2,66,104.96, inter-State sales of hides and skins covered by C forms at Rs. 48,089.07 and export sales supported by H forms at Rs. 4,23,923; totally Rs. 7,38,117.03. For the year 1980-81, he showed simi...
Tag this Judgment!T.N. Srinivasaiah and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Kar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1990
Reported in: [1992]84STC75(Kar)
ORDERM.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The assessee was assessed for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 by the Commercial Tax Officer, Channapatna on the return filed by him. He claimed exemption in respect of certain turnover to be his turnover as a commission agent having acted as agent of the agriculturists who produced groundnuts which he passed on later to the registered dealers. But on verification of his books of accounts at the time of assessment, the Commercial Tax Officer, Channapatna found that he had actually made purchases of groundnut from the unregistered dealers or agriculturists and thereafter again sold such purchased groundnuts to other registered dealers and in his bill of sale, showed 2 per cent as commission. Therefore, he claimed that he was a commission agent and not a first purchaser. That contention was rejected and such turnover which was actually against the payment to the agriculturists or unregistered dealers, was brought to tax holding the assessee as the first p...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Chikkarangaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR213; 1990(3)KarLJ454
ORDERRamachandriah, J. 1. The all powerful and mighty State of Karnataka through its Additional State Public Prosecutor, Sri B.R. Nanjundaiah, has filed a petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancelling bail granted to these 21 respondents by the Sessions Judge, Tumkur (for short 'the Sessions Judge') in SC 13/1990 by order dated 30-3-1990. These respondents are charge-sheeted by Kuniyal Police for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 321, 326, 506, 307 and 302 read with Section 114 IPC. As per charge-sheet allegations, these respondents and A-9 are alleged to have made a brutal and barbaric attack on one H.B. Boralingaiah (deceased) in broad day light at about 9 a.m. on Friday the T5th September, 1989 in the heart of a village called Jodi Hosahalli in Kunigai Taluk situate at a distance of about 25 Kms. from Kunigai Police Station by making a fatal assault on him with lethal weapons just in front of the house of one Guddaiah and causing him as many as 22 gr...
Tag this Judgment!Thimmarayappa and anr. Vs. Smt. Tholasamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC457
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The only question of law which could been in this second appeal was whether the 1st defendant's estate on the relevant date was a limited estate or an absolute estate in terms of Sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.2. On the admitted facts that question does not arise at all. Indisputably, the defendants who were off-springs of the second wife of the husband of the 1st defendant who was the third wife of one Puttaiah who by a will had endowed certain properties on the third wife of the 1st defendant for her life time. When she was enjoying that property as on the date the Hindu Succession Act came into force, the fact that the same property was accepted by her under a subsequent deed of settlement in terms of which a compromise decree was passed would not affect the nature and character of her possession which was in lieu of her maintenance. Therefore, the character of a limited estate had not disappeared by virtue of the settlement deed in terms of sub-s...
Tag this Judgment!Lakkawwa Vs. Gourawwa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)KarLJ149
CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J.( 1 ) THIS second appeal is by the 4th defendant in the original suit brought by the plaintiff in O. S. 97 of 1985 in the court of the munsiff at saundatt.( 2 ) PLAINTIFF wanted declaration of her title to the suit schedule property based on the deed of settlement dated 21-6-1979 (family arrangement), executed by defendant-1, head of the family, at the relevant time-kartha or manager, as part of the settlement in her favour on account of her marriage to the third defendant, one of the sons of the first defendant and brother of defendant-2. Defendant-3 being the son of the 4th defendant and the wife of the first defendant. The plaintiff also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property comprised in block No. 386 measuring 5 acres 30 guntas situate within mudanagere village in belgaum district. She also prayed in the alternative in the event court were to com...
Tag this Judgment!Kishore Lal and Others Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-07-1990
Reported in: [1991]72CompCas456(Kar); ILR1990KAR3876; 1990(3)KarLJ129
Mirdhe, J. 1. This criminal petition is preferred under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to quash the entire proceedings in SPL/FIR No.55 of 1986, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Raichur. There are in all eight accused in the said case. This criminal petition is preferred by accused Nos. 1 to 5 in that case. 2. A few facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of this case are as follows: The P.S.I. Sadar Bazar, Raichur, went to the mill-Ajoomal Lilaram Oil Mill with panchas and some members of his staff on December 18, 1986, at 7.30 p.m. as he had information that, in Ajoomal Lilaram Oil Mill, business was carried on without maintaining a stock book and that commodities such as oil seeds, cotton seeds, etc., were stored illegally. The P.S.I. conducted a raid and checked the oil mill and found that 28 quintals 98 kgs. of sunflower oil was illegally stocked which was more than the stock mentioned in the stock register and, therefore, there was violation of clauses 7...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »