Karnataka Court January 1991 Judgments
Thungabhadra Steel Products Ltd. Vs. Supdt. of Central Excise
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: 1991(33)ECC140; 1992LC87(Karnataka); 1991(56)ELT340(Kar)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a public-sector undertaking engaged in the manufacture, assembly and erection of hydraulic gates, hoists, cranes and pen-stock pipes which are eligible to levy under the Central Excise Act ('the Act'). The petitioner field classification list 1/86 effective from 21-3-1986 giving particulars of all excisable goods manufactured by the petitioner. The classification list, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-'C' to the writ petition gives the full description of each item manufactured/warehoused by the petitioner. Item-2 in the said form gives the particulars of parts of components of hydraulic structure, etc., manufactured by the petitioner-company. 2. After the Modvat Scheme was introduced by the Central Government in the year 1986, the petitioner availed of the benefit of modvat in respect of the finished excisable goods. The petitioner, accordingly, field a declaration before the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise, as required under the R...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanamma Vs. Kamalamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1776; 1991(1)KarLJ380
Hanumanthappa, J. 1. On 23-2-1991, the respondent Kamalamma filed an application under Order XXII Rule 9 of CPC requesting the trial Court to set aside the order of abatement passed in O.S. No. 801 of 1981, contending that she came in possession of the suit property by usufructuary mortgage deed dated 26-2-1973. The said application was opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondents contending that the respondent has perfected his title over the property by way of adverse possession. It was also objected by the petitioners herein contending that-(1) the applicant was not entitled to seek for setting aside the abatement;(2) the application filed by the applicant seeking setting aside abatement has not made out sufficient cause; and(3) the application filed under Order XXII Rule 9 as not maintainable. According to the petitioners herein/objectors, the setting aside of abatement can be sought only by legal representatives of the deceased and not by person/s like the applicant/responde...
Tag this Judgment!Erappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3102; 1991(2)KarLJ432
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J. 1. In this batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners have sought for a common relief based upon similar set of facts. Therefore, I propose to hear and dispose of these Petitions by the common following order. 2. Admittedly, the petitioners are the employees working in the State of Karnataka in different Departments controlled by the Central Government. With a view to construct residential houses on the sites allotted to them by the CIL House Building Co-operative Society Limited, they approached the Government of India through the various Departments in which they are working for sanction of loans. According to them, they are low paid employees and they could not afford to pay the higher rentals and therefore they have taken up constructions of their own houses by raising loans. 3. According to the Rules governing such loans, the petitioners are required to execute Mortgage Deeds in favour of Government of India in respect of the sites on which loans were granted...
Tag this Judgment!President, Poura Karmika Sangha Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR918; 1991(1)KarLJ424
Murlidher Rao, J.1. Writ Appeals 1504 to 1506 of 1990, are against the orders in W.Ps.19058/1986, 18875/1986, 18876/1986, respectively; Writ Appeals 1554 and 1555/1990 are against orders in W.Ps.20452 and 20453/1986. Writ Appeal 1518/1990 is against the orders of single Judge in W.P.21409/1986. These petitions were disposed of by a common Judgment by the learned single Judge on 23-1-1990. Writ Petition 21007/1990 is by a registered Union called 'Hubli Dharwad Mahanagarasabheya Harijan Girijan Navakara Sangha', it is filed on 23-10-1990, nine months after the disposal of the above petitions; the reliefs claimed in this petition are substantially the same. On 24th October 1990, the learned single Judge directed this petition to be brought up after the disposal of W.A.1518/1990, referred to above. Thereafter the petitioner filed a memo on 25-10-1990, to hear this matter along with Writ Appeals, referred to above. By order dated 30-10-1990, passed by a Bench, presided by the Hon'ble Chief ...
Tag this Judgment!Swarna Mahal Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: [1991]83STC92(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. For the assessment year 1976-77 the appellant was assessed to tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short). 2. The appellant is a dealer dealing in gold and silver articles and generally purchases gold ornaments which thereafter are sold after conversion. The appellant had filed a return declaring the total turnover of Rs. 9,84,340.44. The appellant had claimed exemption in respect of the turnover pertaining to purchase of gold ornaments relying upon the notification issued by the Government in that regard. That tax on purchase is levied under section 6 of the Act but by virtue of the notification issued by the Government, regarding which there was no dispute, the said turnover was excluded. The assessing authority by its order dated October 27, 1977, assessed the appellant to a total tax of Rs. 37,810.61 after holding that the total turnover of the appellant as Rs. 9,46,073. Subsequently, the assessing authority initia...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawarlal JaIn Vs. Mahendra Prasad
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR454; 1991(2)KarLJ77
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J. 1. This Writ Petition is by Sri Bhawarlal Jain the father of the detenu Mahesh Kumar Seth alias Mahesh Kumar Jain who has been detained in Central Jail, Bangalore, in pursuance to the order of detention dated 9-8-1990 passed by the 1st respondent under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA Act) in F.No. 673/270/90 Cus VIII marked as Annexure-A to the Writ Petition. The detenu has been furnished the grounds of detention, order of detention and materials relied on in passing the order of detention. The grounds of detention are filed at Annexure-B to the petition.2. The petitioner in this Writ Petition has sought for:-a) Issue a Writ In the nature of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the detention of Shri Mahesh Kumar Seth alias Mahesh Kumar Jain by order F.No. 673/ 270/90 Cus VIII dated 9th August 1990 as illegal and abinitiovoid...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1991
Reported in: 1993ACJ1107; AIR1991Kant385; ILR1991KAR1614; 1991(1)KarLJ401
ORDERHiremath, J.1. The appellant was. the 1st plaintiff in original suit before the Court of the Civil Judge, Bangalore District in O. S. 583/1981 and the 2nd plaintiff was insurer whereas the present respondent wasdefendant No. 1 and Assistant Engineer, Karnataka Electricity Board. Gadag was the 2nd defendant. The facts in brief are that as against the order placed by the 2nd defendant with the 2nd plaintiff N.G.E.F. Ltd. ('NGEF' for short hereafter) it manufactured a transformer for the use of the 2nd defendant at Gadag in Dharwar District. It was despatched with its necessary fittings and accessories to the address of the 2nd defendant from Baiyappanahalll railway siding in Bangalore District on 31-5-1972. A special type of wagon was provided by the Railways for transporting it on Rails. It was on 11-10-1972 that NGEF came to know that transformer had sustained damages during its transshipment from broad guage to meter guage at Guntakal and even 3000 litres of oil that the transfor...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Tax Officer, Xii Circle, Bangalore and Others Vs. Swathi Tr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR582
Shivaraj Patil, J. 1. All these appeals are directed against the orders passed by the learned single Judge in the respective writ petitions striking down sub-section (3A) and sub-section (5) of section 22 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, as unconstitutional and ultra vires. The respondents in the writ petitions are the appellants in these appeals. Since common questions of law arise for determination in these appeals, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The writ petitioners sought for a writ of certiorari praying to quash the amended provisions of sub-section (3A) and sub-section (5) of section 22 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act') as amended by Karnataka Act No. 15 of 1988. By the said Amendment Act 15 of 1988, the power of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal granting stay orders in appeals filed before the Tribunal arising out of the appeals disposed of by the appellate authority, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), i...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Minerals and Manufacturing Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1991
Reported in: 1991(33)ECC272
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The first petitioner is a private limited company and the second petitioner is a share holder. The company was incorporated during January, 1979 with the object of setting up a mini cement plant for manufacturing cement. The company was incorporated pursuant to a press note issued by the Government of India (Ministry of Industry and Industrial Development) on 4.1.1979 offering certain incentives for the establishment of a mini cement plant with the object of achieving rapid increase in production of cement in the country. A copy of the press note is produced along with the writ petition as Annexure-A.The important incentives offered by the Central Government were:i) Uniform rate of Rs. 296 per ton to the cement manufactured by the mini cement plant for a period of 5 years from the date of commercial production;ii) Rebate up to 50 per cent in the payment of central excise duty for a period of 5 years.2. After preparing a project report for setting up c...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental F. and G. Insu. Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi),rep. by G.M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1991
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC58
D.P. Hiremath, J. 1. The appellant was the 1st plaintiff in original suit before the Court of the Civil Judge, Bangalore District in O.S. No. 583/1981 and the 2nd plaintiff was insurer whereas the present respondent was defendant No.1 and Assistant Engineer, Karnataka Electricity Board, Gadag was the 2nd defendant. The facts in brief are that as against the order placed by the 2nd defendant with the 2nd plaintiff N.G.E.F. Ltd. ('NGEF' for short hereafter) it manufactured a transformer for the use of the 2nd defendant at Gadag in Dharwar district. It was despatched with its necessary fittings and accessories to the address of the 2nd defendant from Baiyappanahalli railway siding in Bangalore District on 31.5.1972. A special type of wagon was provided by the Railways for transporting it on Rails, it was on 11.10.1972 that NGEF came to know that transformer has sustained damage during its from broad-gauge to meter-gauge at Guntakal and even 3000 litres of oil that the transformer was fil...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »